User talk:Tool2Die4/Archive 1

Controversial /= biased
To say something is controversial is not a biased statement when the whole article is about the controversy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.115.60 (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Today
I don't know if today has made you feel worse than it did before it, but please accept my apologies if I have inadvertantly offended you in anyway. I'm sure I won't be alone in suggesting that we believe you shouldn't be leaving(?). If you aren't ignore this message. Rudget  (Help?) 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel I should clarify as well. I wasn't intending to call you "stupid", but rather to point out that things at that RfA have reached the point where people (not just you, but many people) accuse first and verify later. I'm sorry to focus on that particular episode, as it's one of many relating to that RfA. MastCell Talk 19:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would guess this user has gleaned what he could from the vitriol spewed every which way by everyone pertaining to everything at the RfA, and is turning a new leaf, and keeping his nose out of places where it doesn't belong, until he fully understands what he's doing. Just a hunch. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor CTU agents in 24
There's a current change to an article that I feel should have the discussion of the whole Wkiproject. It's the article above, the old version is this and the new version is the current version. I think some discussion on which version would be best would be wise in this situation. Feel free to discuss this on the article talk page. Thanks, SteveBot (owner) 21:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

24 Project C Class discussion and Merger Discussion
 Just a note that the 24 WikiProject is having a discussion on whether to implement the new C-Class into our assessment scheme, is taking place on the assessment talk page. Feel free to add your input here. SteveBot (owner) 06:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that Reed Pollock and Walid Al-Rezani are up for discussion to be merged.

Image Fair Use Issue Discussion
 Discussion is currently taking place as to how the project will use images, the quantity of images in our articles, and whether we are currently overusing images. Your input is requested on this page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Steve Crossin  (contact)  12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ernie Davis
You beat me to the reversion by seconds! Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of "award-winning" from film articles
Hi. I see you've gone on a tear, removing the phrase "award-winning" and similar constructions from the lede sentence of film articles. Let me point out, that what WP:MOSFILM says is:"It is not recommended that the phrase 'award-winning' be used in the first sentence of the lead: it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the film."So, in removing "award-winning" without adding the subsequent detail that provides context, you are doing only half the job, and, in fact, hurting articles by removing information from the lede that should be there. In the future, rather than concentrating on bulk removals, why not spend a little more time on each article and improve them by adding a quick summary of the most significant awards the fim has won, or the number of them, if that's important -- not a whole lot of information, just a sentence or two at most. Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Chief Illiniwek
I welcome your interest in my work; please be more specific.

I made a variety of copy-edits to the "Chief Illinwek" article based on at least 31 years of study and research on the history and language of the Peoria Indians and University of Illinois tradition. (Along the way, I corrected some punctuation.)

Which edits do you find objectionable? I would be happy to provide citations or sources for further reading for your information and review.

If different published sources are in conflict, then perhaps multiple citations are needed. Unfortunately, a great amount of the article derives from secondary sources, each of which was written with a particular point of view. Even the official University of Illinois report on Chief Illinwek depended a bit too much on often contradictory secondary sources for some of its historical background.

The "Chief Illiniwek" article, even as it appeared before my edits, lacked a completely neutral viewpoint, though it came astonishly close to the mark. I favor a broad examination of the different points of view attached to any topic, which is my personal definition (or interpretation) of neutral—and which is not easily found in Wikipedia.

Opinion has no place in Wikipedia.

My personal interest in the "Chief Illiniwek" article is in the accurate history of the Peoria Indians (who, for example, were not forcibly removed from what is now the State of Illinois), the use of historically accurate terminology (such as "Illinois Confederation" instead of "Illiniwek"), and a fair representation of the history of Chief Illiniwek.

It has occurred to me that you might have objected to some edits in relation to the word "mascot." I found the discussion of "mascot" versus "symbol" in the article quite refreshing. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that Chief Illiniwek was seldom, if ever, referred to as a "mascot" in University of Illinois publications dating to 1926. (This observation is based on my extensive work with the school yearbook and newspaper; alas, I have not compiled statistics on this subject.)

I look forward to your reply.

PlaysInPeoria (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As soon as you start to remove 'mascot', rest assured you'll be reverted. Consensus is well-established on this.  I went to UIUC.  I know the argument.  No one outside of Chief supporters think it's a symbol as opposed to a mascot.  And you've already sold yourself out - original research isn't allowed on Wikipedia, so your 31 years mean nothing here. Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No one outside the supporters?! You mean those who are dissenting opinion, of which your concern for actual facts and most of all respect for other's opinions besides your own is saddening, this is one who does know the material, and you state he has "sold out", unfortunately you leave yourself in the category of Mr. Kauffman in that leaving yourself to being such an extreme, screaming to few that will listen while the other's are glad to be able to listen on ways to better our future, deal in extremes, and you shall get little done at all, Debate 101. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.67.199.114 (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And if you want to make changes, I'd suggest doing it in smaller increments so that some can pass. Again, as I said, anytime you remove 'mascot', you'll be reverted by any number of people watching the article. Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The dancing, white, frat boy is gone. Accept this. Move on. Tool2Die4 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Omar Epps November 2008
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

1)I dont know why you warned me. Putting in Omar Epps's 1st marriage & eldest daughter isnt bad. It isnt controversial or defamatory. All of Elizabeth Taylors' ex husbands are listed; as well as her affairs. All of Jack Nicholson's affairs,ex wives,girlfriends, & 1 night stands; as well as his children are listed. The info is sourced.  CBB is run by People mag so it is credible. Also if u google it u'll see his ex wife & daughter come up.   2)The infidelity info does need a source so Im looking 4 it. 70.108.110.251 (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you need to read up on WP:BLP. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. U all so quickly throw around 'u need 2 read WP:BLP', have u yourself read it. If cheating is gonna be taken out of bios, take it out of Bill Clinton's page, Billy Bob's page, Jack Nicholson's page, etc. 70.108.110.251 (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Omar Epps
This is your only warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

The info is sourced. Obviously you can read so are you? 72.66.94.160 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your friend
Hi, Tool2Die4. I delisted your report to AIV concerning the IP that vandalized your user page, as it had only made the one edit, 2 hours ago. If s/he returns, let me know, and I'll take care of him/her. If it becomes a long-term problem, I can semi-protect your user page. I certainly know how frustrating it can be to have someone harass you. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:DirecTV
While Alex43223 has made over three reverts to the page, his reverts were to revert vandalism, which is allowed in the three revert rule. Thanks for the heads-up! Malinaccier (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFA#Wehwalt
You've opposed the above RfA stating "Wikipedia needs less admins with attitude problems, not more". As there has only been one diff (out of 15,000) provided that could be considered uncivil, I'm a bit confused about how the comment applies to Wehwalt specifically. Could you provide some diffs to illustrate this "attitude problem". Thanks, - auburn pilot   talk  20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Don't need to.  I can oppose on basically any grounds I want.  And I always get a good chuckle from the oppose-stalkers, so thanks for that. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make a note of that on the RfA. Best, - auburn pilot   talk  20:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, your oppose at WP:RFA#Undead warrior 3 is also being questioned. - auburn pilot   talk  20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:T2d4chrome.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:T2d4chrome.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! Hilarious! You're actually so childish as to pull this? That's great! Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The image still lacks a copyright tag. Rather than remove the deletion template, you ought to address this.  Further info on this can be found at Image copyright tags.  Cheers. -- Skarl 21:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but it is a little interesting that the taggers first edit outside of his RfA after T2D4 opposed it was to tag something of his for deletion. --Smashvilletalk 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps unwise. But if I was on RfA I'd probably visit the pages of people opposing me, and if they had any garish images on their pages I might check them. Regardless of motive, the copyright problems remain, and T can easily solve them by claiming the image as his own, as I assume it is William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, technically, a simple declaration of ownership won't suffice. It needs to be freely licensed for user space. -- Skarl 21:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will read up on the linked page, and correct the problem. I made the image, and care nothing about it being reused or reproduced. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh, yes, I misswrote, it has to be given an appropriate license William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But seriously UW, that is pretty ridiculous. You really didn't have to bite this user as such, you could have asked if the image was his and requested proof. &mdash; Ceran '''[  speak  ] 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't bite anyone. Images are one of my biggest things on wiki. If I see one that lacks anything, I let twinkle do it's thing. If this image had been done correctly, i.e. had a license, I would have moved it to commons. I'm going to move my nominators image to commons to. This has nothing to do with the vote in RfA, but rather the fact that I saw an image that was missing a license. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I guess you can't prevent life; fortune is a cruel mistress. &mdash; Ceran '''[  speak  ] 20:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? is that a pun from my username? Or was that something about my comment above? I'm confusing myself. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please direct your attention to actually giving the image an appropriate copyright tag so we can close this. You've got about an hour William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a small hint for the future. You don't need to re-upload a picture if you get the warning that it might be deleted. Just add the right license template to the description and delete the deletion tag. Undead Warrior (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All seems to be sorted out now William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Page vandalism
Please don't vandalise my talk page accusing of me of violating 3RR cleraly when this is not the case. The Daily Princetonion is a college newspaper not a mainstream newspaper and therefore does not meet verifiability requirements. Please revert your vandalism on the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR is a policy that cannot be violated. I'm not surprised you don't understand this.  Revert again, and you're in violation (as you already admitted knowing on your request for page protection). Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you revert the article again you will be in violation of 3RR and I will have no choice but to report you. Please do not leave any more threats on my talk page.  Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been here a month. Try to learn how Wikipedia works before you go off half-cocked.  Try glancing through some AfD arguments, and you'll see the Daily Princetonian has been argued as an RS.  Circulation of 8,000 (extending off-campus), and a budget of $400,000.  Sounds like you're just trying to slyly push your POV. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It may have been ARGUED but not confirmed. 8000 copies is not mainstream.  It's a school newspaper.  How many legitimate encyclopedias would cite a school newspaper?  BTW I've been here for over a year, but have only been registered a short while. It doesn't alter Wikepdia's requirements for factual accuracy, and you are using a schoold newspaper to uphold an accusation of racism which is not upheld by the mainstream press. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it's blatantly obvious that you don't understand how Wikipedia works (what was page protection going to accomplish?), I'll help you out, and file a report at the RS noticeboard, and let them decide. In the meantime, feel free to revert my edit again. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't help but notice this and add that you are in NO position to tell anyone they don't know how Wikipedia works, since you've violated just about every rule in the book at one time or another. Of course you'll delete this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but I will tell you I couldn't give two shits about your opinion, and have no idea why you felt the need to chime in. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe's he's offering us a third-party opnion as part of dispute resolution you ill-mannered person?Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I actually filed a report at the RS noticeboard, as I stated earlier. You're doing nothing but begging other editors to revert on your behalf, and also Wiki-stalking. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's my opinion again, because I am entitled to hand it out whether you like it or not. No-one begged me to do anything, I just watch your page because it's entertaining. Look forward to me chiming in whenever I damn well feel like it. It's a free Wikipedia. Believe it or not, I'm happy to back you up if ever I agree with you, but otherwise I'll have my say if it takes my fancy, particularly if you're bullying other users as you so often do. Okay with you? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's up my British friend? Long time, no see! Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't you British? I should have guessed! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a stereotypical greasy, loud-mouthed, arrogant American. Everything makes sense now huh? Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually pretty funny! I like Americans very much so no prejudice here. Not everyone can be British and perfect... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

unnotable game statistics
I saw some of your edits on Darren Sproles. I'm sure you will have something to say about this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Melchionni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.53.120 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Darren Sproles
What is your reasoning for your removal of text from the Darren Sproles article?

If it is because it is un-sourced, then you need to remove a lot of the other text also. You are removing text at your discretion, you are not being fair and playing on a level playing field. If the text is true, then it either ALL needs to stay or go. He did have: "328 all-purpose yards -- 105 rushing, 45 receiving and 178 combined return yardage." This is verifiable information:

News Stories for Darren Sproles 328 all-purpose yards (Results 1 - 10 of about 32) San Francisco Chronicle - Jan 04 12:29 AM     The backup took the football and never looked back. Darren Sproles, the smallest member of the San Diego Chargers, pulled off one of the biggest endings in club history Saturday night - a 22-yard touchdown run in overtime that lifted his team to a 23-17... The Gadsden Times - Jan 04 5:04 AM     The San Diego Chargers upset the Indianapolis Colts in overtime Saturday, 23-17. Darren Sproles accounted for 328 all-purpose yards in the victory. (Jan. 4) Los Angeles Times - Jan 03 9:05 PM     After San Diego ties the score late in regulation, the tiny (5-foot-6) backup tailback bolts 22 yards for the winning touchdown in overtime. The backup took the football and never looked back. New York Times - 1 hour, 34 minutes ago The Chargers? Darren Sproles is the N.F.L.?s answer to the Red Sox? Dustin Pedroia: a player recognized for his shortness who made a big impact in the playoffs. The Kansas City Star - Jan 04 4:00 AM     SAN DIEGO | Darren Sproles ran and ran and ran for all he was worth. And Sproles, San Diego's diminutive running back, will be worth quite a bit more after his tour de force performance in the Chargers' dramatic 23-17 overtime victory over Indianapolis in a first-round AFC playoff game Saturday night at Qualcomm Stadium. Bloomberg - Jan 03 10:29 PM     Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Darren Sproles ran 22 yards for a touchdown to give the San Diego Chargers a 23-17 overtime win over the Indianapolis Colts in the first round of playoffs in the American Football Conference playoffs. San Diego Union-Tribune - Jan 03 11:33 PM     TIM SULLIVAN: Taking over for an injured Tomlinson, Sproles is at his elusive best, racking up 328 combined yards in frustrating the Colts and sparking the Chargers. GUEST COLUMN: Underachieving Colts at it again UPI - Jan 03 9:22 PM     SAN DIEGO, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- Darren Sproles scored on a 22-yard run in overtime Saturday night to boost the San Diego Chargers to a 23-17 win over Indianapolis in an AFC wild-card game. NBC San Diego - 20 minutes ago The smallest player on the field, Sproles is just 5'7'', certainly had the biggest night. That wasn't surprising to his teammates...     The Sporting News via Yahoo! News - Jan 04 12:16 AM     SAN DIEGO -- Five things to carry home after the San Diego Chargers' 23-17 overtime victory over the Indianapolis Colts in Saturday's AFC wild-card game
 * 1. Colts struck down by little Bolt / Sproles has 328 yards in Chargers' OT win
 * 2. Chargers Stun Colts in Overtime, 23-17
 * 3. Chargers' Darren Sproles ends it in a flash
 * 4. Sproles Stands Tall in His Big Moment
 * 5. Sproles comes up big for Chargers in playoff game
 * 6. San Diego Chargers, Arizona Cardinals Advance in NFL Playoffs
 * 7. The Chargers' smallest player comes up with his biggest game
 * 8. NFL: San Diego 23, Indianapolis 17 (OT)
 * 9. Sproles, Ready for an Encore?
 * 10. Sproles' shoulders plenty big enough to carry Chargers

Do I need to give you all 32?

Don't be lazy just because other people are too. Put that "tool" of yours to good use. - 4.240.78.11 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Or just add a citation to the article. My goal is more to prove a point to the IPs of how Wikipedia works.  Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are assuming (ass-u-me) that these IPs know what the rules are, are reading the History tab, know how to WP:Cite sources, etc. Most of these guys either don't know about any of these things, or don't care. They are not reading the History tab. They just add it and then go play a video game and the next one comes along and does the same thing. But, if you were to FIX it, instead of just revert it, it would have only happened once, not 15 times. You are proving nothing to them, they have moved on and do not care. You are only proving your own stubbornness. You are like the guy who works in tech support and just gets the customer off the phone instead of actually FIXING the customers problem. This makes your call stats looks good (Oh, look at all the edits I did), but there is no quality value there. The customer calls back in 10 times until a tech looks at the call history and sees that he has gotten the brush off the last 9 times and then sticks it out to actually RESOLVE the issues and end it. Unless you are going to take the time to personally communicate with each-and-every IP address leaving the stat, your are just wasting your time. Just add a verifiable source and do quality work and move on. - 4.240.78.11 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your Oppose on E-man's RfA.
I have commented here. Scarian Call me Pat!  18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you a 'crat, or are you just oppose-badgering? Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

False accusations of sock puppetry
You have falsely accused me of sock puppetry, without evidence. I denied your false accusation, and you repeated it. The other user (alleged sock-puppet) then also denied your false accusation, and you answered that you are "having an administrator look into it." Please update on your progress with that, and apologize when your false accusation is found to be baseless.TVC 15 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

T2D4, you're right about Elphie13 being someone who has edited Wikipedia before (see - see "I really hope I'm doing this right", and then scroll down to see use of "NPOV" - Strange). I'm now going to look at similarities between TVC and Elphie; grammar, spelling, and general writing style are all awfully similar. Scarian Call me Pat!  21:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tool2Die4, you have chosen to make your false accusation the subject of an express "Quid Pro Quo" involving someone else's RfA. At your express "Quid Pro Quo" request, Scarian is "looking into" your false accusation of sock-puppetry against me. As such, the investigation of the false accusation may likewise be affected by your offer concerning the unrelated RfA. Even though your offer appears to have bought a groundless investigation, I will obviously try to prevent it from buying an unjust result.TVC 15 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I withdrew my Oppose from the RfA, so now the focus is completely on your sock-puppet case. Feel better?  And again, you sure are getting worked up about this. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I chime in here, if that is okay? Though being a newbie, I have actually read some WP policies which I figured would help to avoid offending people when I started commenting. I also usually check out the links with which others back up arguments. Still, I haven't nearly read all of them and am still trying to get a grasp of what is and isn't appliable to whatever we're discussing, which is why I don't use all the links TCV 15 uses. If you reread my first post, Scarian, the NPOV was out of a quote from a post above mine, which I was responding to, I wasn't citing it myself. I try very hard to use correct language but I'm sure you can find some spelling, grammar and punctuation mistakes I overlooked since English is not my first language while TVC 15 uses words like 'inapposite' (so that at least is flattering, to me.). This is my first WP account, so I figured I'd start small and stick to things I know stuff about. Elphie13 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

T2D4, I got a CU ran against Elphie and TVC and they turned up unrelated. You're welcome to file one if you get any more evidence. I'm going to give up on paying attention to E-man's RfA as it's exhausting me, as such, you can keep the reasons for your, now removed, oppose to yourself if you wish. Take care and feel free to contact me if you require any help with anything. Scarian Call me Pat!  01:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyways. Tool2Die4 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris Kramer
This article does indicate some significance or importance, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. You are welcome to try WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. --Aude (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You broke my heart. Although I figured it was a stretch. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI
There's a new thread about you here. Tan  &#124;   39  04:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempted bullying and otherwise inappropriate activity
At Scarian's suggestion, I have placed a notice concerning your bullying and otherwise inappropriate activity on WP:AIN: .TVC 15 (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have requested a WP:CHECKUSER for the reasons described here:.TVC 15 (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Anderson Cooper talk page
You know, you do not have to be so rude!!! If you are not going to contribute your opinion to our discussion then why did you come onto the talk page??? I will ask an admin whether or not we can vote, not you!!! I do not want to be mean but if you bully me I will report it. That is not a threat that is a promise!!! --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI or WP:RFC. And can you not read?  I said at the top of my Talk Page, don't post messages here.  And I'm not being rude.  I'm just taken aback by your inability to read something and comprehend it.  Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Then how will wikipedians be able to contact you??? And did you see the message that the admin left on the AC talk page??? And please respond on my talk page. Thank you. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the irony. NO ONE can contact me!  It's a fool-proof plan.  Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But people do contact you!!! And as people have contacted you it does not look very fool proof to me. And you did not answer my questions. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A request
Hey there. While you are not yet doing anything that requires administrator action, your attitude really isn't one that exactly meshes with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Believe you me, I'm not a civility stickler - I have little tolerance for fools and for wasting time. However, you might want to take a second or third look at your recent responses and think about whether or not the project would be better served if you used a slightly less abrasive tone. Thanks! Tan  &#124;   39  20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But it feels so good to belittle people! Plus I love Wiki-drama. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Was that a serious comment? Tan   &#124;   39  20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The bickering and politics that go on here are better than any primetime TV show.  And if a person acts stupid, I have no problems letting them know it.  If I can get them banned in the process and off Wikipedia, all the better.  Civility and AGF are overrated.  Anyone who has spent any appreciable time here can understand where I'm coming from.  Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Consider this your final warning for incivility, personal attacks, and/or harassment. Any further disruption and you will be blocked. Tan   &#124;   39  21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One favor. If there's ever a situation deemed worthy of my blocking, save yourself (or the other admin) the trouble, and make it an indef.  I'm not being a prick, but blocking me isn't going to change anything. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. Tan   &#124;   39  21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)