User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 3

< User talk:Jéské Couriano

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jéské Couriano (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 8 January 2008 (→I beg your pardon?: Re, final warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:54, 8 January 2008 by Jéské Couriano (talk | contribs) (→I beg your pardon?: Re, final warning)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

NOTE: If you leave a message for me here, I will respond to it here.
NOTE: If you need to ask me a question regarding certain users, be aware that I will look into the history.
NOTE: I reserve the right to remove any posts by anons unrelated to building an encyclopedia. Personal attacks, vandalism, Internet memes, etc. will be reverted on sight.

IP address vandalism Batesmethod article

Again vandalism in the batesmethod article by IP=address. The same party I assume. ( Ophthalmology ? ). Or an other party is doing everything to keep the quality of the article as low and unclear as possible. Attempts to discuss the changes have been made. Only fake arguments were given as you can read. I do not think semi protection is enough for this page. This article is making clear providing clear objective information about the batesmethod is not about giving clear referenced information it is about politics. Seeyou (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Even user Mastcell knows how to be a vandal ! :-) But he semi protected the article again so he is ... ? Seeyou (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about him, but threads like these aren't going to score you anything except close scrutiny of your actions. -Jéské 19:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And stop blind-reverting. I am not thrilled with your edits to Bates Method. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Can you explain why you are not thrilled with my edits ? Seeyou (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I am not thrilled by the edit of MastCell. Seeyou (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He's reverting to a version that has consensus. -Jéské 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He is wrong there is no consensus at all ! If Mastcell says there is consensus I am gone make cabal. Seeyou (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see you're the only one making those type of edits to the article. I've also read the talk page of Bates method, and that is a real horrorshow story. -Jéské 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Horrorshow is right. I'm afraid Seeyou is a single-purpose user. The single purpose being to push his/her POV on the Bates method and smear everybody disagreeing with him/her as a sockpuppet of me (Famousdog/AED/MastCell/etc...). Anything that criticises Seeyou's POV is a "fake argument" (see above) even though there's no such thing as a fake argument, only good arguments and bad arguments. Seeyou is obsessed with petty semantics ("educational program" vs. "system" or "unlearn" vs. "relearn") and any attempt to engage in a debate spirals out of control (see the many versions of "for the objective reader"). Just ignore him/her and edit the article however you see fit. Famousdog (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we even talking the same definition of horrorshow? In any case, I have already reviewed Seeyou's edits and note that, w/ very little exception, he is an SPA (and quickly turning into a disruptive one at that) and has quite a few ownership issues with the article at hand. I have the page watchlisted and note that several (more than half) of the Bates Method alleged "Tor" proxies were disproven as such by WP:OP. I am going to start warning for consensus breaches the next time he makes an edit in defiance of consensus, and if he keeps up, he will get an enforced vacation. -Jéské 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get your obscure cultural reference there !-) Famousdog (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

IP hopper at 206.170.103.* returns

The semi-protect period ended for article Raiden Fighters. On January 2, 2008 at 14:12 Pacific Standard Time, this vandal returned to blatantly place the same misleading information he has been putting in this and other similar articles for months. I tried the Admins' noticeboard, but it fell on deaf ears since it was an anonymous dynamic IP. Any suggestions?

This is what I hate most about Misplaced Pages. Why allow vandalism when it can be prevented in the first place (by allowing only registered users to edit)? JudgeSpear (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Because those same IP users also provide legitimate information (much more than they provide crap, I can tell you), and do not want to register an account for various reasons. However, he has not tried again for a bit; the article is still on my watchlist and I will protect it again if he keeps it up. -Jéské 11:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting talk comments on Talk:D&D

Regarding this edit on Talk:Dungeons & Dragons in which you reverted a comment. Sure, as you note, this isn't a forum. However, I don't believe we are supposed to be quite as strict in policing talk pages as articles proper. Reverting well intentioned, if inappropriate, talk comments seems overly harsh. Wouldn't it have been enough to reply with "This is not a forum. Misplaced Pages talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for discussing the subjects of the articles."? — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The user is currently on admin radars because she's using Misplaced Pages as a soc-net. While I will admit I could have been not so blunt about it, I left her a kinder note both answering her question and telling her Misplaced Pages isn't a forum. -Jéské 19:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So long as this is a highly unusual thing. I did poke around in the user's edits, and they seem more than a little confused about Misplaced Pages. It just seemed odd to be reverting a talk comment, and thus worthy of at least a little investigation. Thanks for all of your work! — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU

Please only use the standard {{CHU}} template with its paramters, it's much more thorough for easy reading for bureaucrats. That is the template clerks should use. Thanks :) Qst 21:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspected V-Dash sock

A new user, SPD has made the exact same edits to Pokemon Diamond and Pearl that V-Dash did back in November. By that I mean this new user keeps changing the genre from CRPG to RPG, and changing the number of species. I thought that I should bring this to your attention, given V-Dash's past history of trolling and sockpuppetry, as well as your experience in handling the situation with that user. It could be unrelated to V-Dash, but I certainly find it suspicious. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, and waaaaaay late. -Jéské 23:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison says "Inconclusive." Behavior will have to do. -Jéské 00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Darn..oh well, we'll keep an eye on 'em. Merry Christmas~! -Sukecchi (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the behavior's pretty damning. He's doing the exact same thing V-Dash did in re the genre section in the infobox; I wouldn't be two-faced if he tried to game. -Jéské 04:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I imagine you already plopped what SPD V put on the talk page in a translator, but in case you didn't: "You are weak, stupid, etc. Why should you go against the word of the fact? Your article does not switch that the large N states. Your encrassent games with your nonsense". Looks like something he would say to me...although in French. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another nail - I blocked Dash for 2 weeks and SPD V indef as a sockpuppet. I asked for a review at AN/I. -Jéské 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hate to break the eggs, but I was sick with food poisoning during the holidays, so I believe you have the wrong guy.V-Dash (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I already reblocked Dash Jr (thanks, Alison!). On a side note, I feel sorry for that and I apologize for pegging SPD V as you. Sukie should do the same. -Jéské 02:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah see, I'm enduring the pain and agony of a dip(for chips) my bro cooked, yet you wanted to accuse poor old me. Ah, but you at least apologized. Well Suke, you're up next.V-Dash (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. -Sukecchi (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Convenient your brother ws there to troll in exactly the same way you were, when you were away from you PC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.214.72 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser states that PolluxFrost, not V-Dash, was running SPD V, 172. You may not know this, but V-Dash and PolluxFrost do not have the same IP address. -Jéské 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mega Man Discussion

Just to clarify, I was explaining to DarkFierceDeityLink that if Sonic and Metal Gear properties had no cameos in previous SSB games, then it makes no sense that Mega Man doing the same should be used as an argument as to why he is or isn't in Brawl. Your reply to me about WHY Sonic and Metal Gear properties weren't in the previous games (besides being something I already knew and have had to explain to confused people on the Talk Page in the past) didn't have much bearing on the actual point I was making; I was basically trying to explain to him that his argument made little sense without actually saying it that way and insulting him or anything. Moot point in the long run since that convo got deleted, but anyways... Arrowned (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. -Jéské 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding disputes

Hi. Recently someone asked me for help in a dispute between two parties, where one has accused the other of wikistalking him. After looking at the situation, I recommended they just drop it and go edit articles. However, the one editor that accused the other disputant of wikistalking (User:Ronz, if you'd like to know) has accused me of assuming bad faith. I fear this may be true, and I have a horrible feeling that I may have been biased towards another party. I hate to get involved, but what should I do now? Maser 05:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to find someone who can be very neutral in the matter and has good negotiation skills to help you (if you decide to continue on), or find someone else willing to do it. If you can provide me a link to the conversation, I'll look into it. -Jéské 05:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The dispute in question is here. I'm rather inexperienced resolving disputes, but would like to be an administrator someday. What could I have done better in that situation? Maser 06:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I could tell, your statements were mainly about the contributor, not the discussion. I have to agree with Ronz here - focus on contributions, not the editors who make them, or you'll just keep getting abused of bias. And do not be so hasty to misinterpret words. -Jéské 06:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a specific thing I said that could have been more civil? Maser 06:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

However, the one editor that accused the other disputant of wikistalking (User:Ronz, if you'd like to know) has accused me of assuming bad faith. (from above) She made no such accusation from what I had read. -Jéské 06:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I might have misinterpreted. This edit, specifically - Please question whether you're assuming bad faith on my part before responding further. Thanks. (from User talk:Ronz) I might have misworded it, I meant that she felt my view to be biased towards the other disputant. The problem I had wasn't that I was being uncivil and biased, but rather that I focused too much on mediating between the disputants, and not enough on the dispute. Maser 06:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you did misinterpret it, and I agree that you were focusing more on the disputants rather than the actual dispute, which gave an appearance of bias. It's not that rare of a mistake, nor is such a mistake the end of the world. Learn from it and grow. My suggestion right now is that you hand it off to someone else (other than me, please) before you inadvertently give someone a reason to make effigies. -Jéské 06:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to give this to the mediation committee at this time? I don't suspect so. Maser 06:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the involved parties and would like to know what steps I can take to resolve this dispute. Anthon01 (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, Anthon, talk with Ronz, if she's willing to listen. Dialog gets more done than swords on Misplaced Pages. If she's not willing to listen, file a mediation. Second, Maser, if both parties consent to mediation, it's a good idea, especially if you've exhausted what you *can* do. -Jéské 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.

But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.

I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.

But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.

Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.

Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.

I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.

Larry Pieniazek

NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and concern. I'll get right on documenting my criteria and procedure. -Jéské 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 ;)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Your recent contributions to the Misplaced Pages article Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection are very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to review your contributions for spelling, grammatical, capitalization, and punctuation errors before you save. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting others must do on the article, and will help maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance of Misplaced Pages. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Misplaced Pages but rather to encourage the best possible writing from our authors. Please take a look at the Manual of Style and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Heh heh heh!--12 Noon 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't misspell unintentionally. -Jéské 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Username change and protection for Marnifrances

Thank you for your help. I have had constant vandalism for the last month or so and it is getting too hard to handle- I am never able to revert the vandalism due to "conflicting intermediate edits". I have blanked my page as you may have noticed. You will also see the people who have vandalised my page in my page history. Thank you for blocking the impersonator, and please protect my page for me. If I have any further problems, I will request a different username change. Thanks so much. Marnifrances (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also filed a request for checkuser; I think you're being targeted by Peterjohnbrennan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -Jéské 08:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Mudkips

If you would like to explain to these people why the mudkips meme is not a reasonable addition to the article, then nobody can stop you from doing that on the user's talk page. But the discussion does not belong on the pokemon article page in question, because it is unconstructive. There has already been a lengthy discussion on the issue - as preserved in the talk archives - and there has been a strong consensus against adding such material. The header on the talk page was added to stop this discussion because it is unconstructive, and it was added for a reason. Any further discussion should be deleted, because by continuing it we are simply running around in circles, pointlessly arguging the same points which have no merit TheBilly (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is not to completely block it from addition - it is to block it from addition unless and until reliable sources appear. Sceptre's word - "ot in a million years" - does not consensus make, and indeed most of us (myself included) who posted in defense of the article a priori the last archive requested - and failed to see - reliable sources. If the person who started the thread was obviously a 4channer or otherwise there to disrupt/troll, I would certainly remove it (as SIHULM's history has resulted in talk-page prots because of such trolling, a few death threats, and impersonation). However, I see absolutely no reason to censor legitimate discourse, provided it actually gets somewhere. And if the same thread keeps popping up, I will make an FAQ and point directly to it on the TP, a la Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl. -Jéské 12:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The hell?...

No one ever agrees with me though... :) Jmlk 1 7 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I only picked you because Alison didn't respond ;) -Jéské 11:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dammit... knew it was too good to be true. :P Jmlk 1 7 22:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said about Super Bowl XL. -Jéské 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed

Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr , checkuser clerk, 11:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

That I saw, that I saw. -Jéské 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

my signature...

oh, no...Im sorry, i dont know to "images are forbidden in signature"...now, im removing to this image...*** Эɱ®εč¡κ *** 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

'Salright. I was just informing you. No worries, null persp. -Jéské 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Gamecube

You denied semi-protection. You said there were no edits since 2005. That is not true. Just take a look at the history, there was an edit less than 2 hours ago. Footballfan190 (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not according to what I saw on the history. I'll look again; this isn't the first time I've been a few seconds slow on my end. -Jéské 02:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong article. History says last edit was made in November of '05.-Jéské 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he actually wants Nintendo GameCube protected, if I may be pardoned for butting in. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You are excused for butting in.

I think part of it is Asher196 overusing the undo button, but there was sufficient vandalism to have it semi-protected. jj137 03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Username Concerns

Thanks for your concern regarding my username, "Awesomebitch".

As suggested, I checked out Misplaced Pages's username policy. It defines an offensive username as one that serves to "make harmonious editing difficult or impossible". "Awesomebitch" seems rather tame to be inflicting the emotional scarring that is necessary for this kind of damage.

I use the term "bitch" as empowering, rather than derogatory. This usage is pretty mainstream these days. (Bitch Magazine and Meredith Brook's song "Bitch" are good examples if you need them.) Used in this way, it can hardly be seen as a vulgarity. However, regardless of how you personally view the term, referring to myself as a bitch does not pose a threat to the community.

Misplaced Pages's username policy isn't there to censor grade-school style, but rather to prevent deliberate attempts at offense/sabotage, which this clearly isn't. There are countless articles inside Misplaced Pages itself that are substantially more offensive than the term "bitch". The Wikipedians who use Misplaced Pages enough to run across my username are resilient enough to not be emotionally disfigured by "Awesomebitch" and her wrath.

I'm sorry if my username hurt your feelings. Will you forgive me?

Let me know if you need any additional clarification.

Awesomebitch (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Empowering or not, the word can still be used in a rather harsh manner and you may find that users can tend to be very unscrupulous. Take it as you may, but I read it as a personal attack. -Jéské 07:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Councillors of Glen Eira

Hi, that ain't going to work b/c they are IP address and they are constantly changing and it tends to be the same person --CatonB (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, protection ain't going to work preemptively. Unless actual vandalism or BLP vios are going on, we can't prot. -Jéské 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?

Personal attacks? I do not know what tree you are barking on, but I've only done minor edits to the Batman Returns article. I haven't even been here that much.V-Dash (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Melicans hit the nail. -Jéské 07:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No he did not. i have been silent as of late until you upped and threatened me for something that hasn't even happened.V-Dash (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright - I will level with you. A few days ago I saw Orange Boomerang (talk · contribs) revert some obvious personal attacks that I had assumed were recent ones - I later looked and saw that they had been on there for a while, and that nobody had removed them until now. I am not looking for any reasons to ban or block you, and in fact, I have cut you more slack than a Disputatious Deeble even deserves (and you cannot deny you are one - your userpage states that " are always right").

Were it another admin unused to the situation with you, you probably would have received a block for that, amongst other things. However, I have been incredibly lenient to the point of almost-naïve with you, and decided to warn you against making such statements again rather than do as another admin would probably have done (given your unimpressive block log). Even that leniency is starting to wane because of your GFAQs friends coming in backed up by enough Tyranids to make a Sliver hive seem like the Seattle Supersonics, and you making the mistake of retorting in kind. My suggestion to you and to everyone at GFAQs, where all this bad blood pools, is to come to the bargaining table, have a schmoke-and-a-pancake, and come to terms. If you can't come to terms, then don't give him a damn cheeseburger. If I see any more combat between the two of you, my gloves will go off, I'll alert WP:AN/I and WP:AN, and I will pull out Loxodon Banhammers to ALL parties involved in the battle - You, PolluxFrost, "Wandering Hero", and any other Tediz you've irked. -Jéské 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was confused

I was confused by your recent message to V-Dash. Yeah, his behavior has been problematic sometimes. But, if you're going to leave a note complaining of something he did, it would be much more clear to include a diff of what exactly concerns you. Friday (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. He just posted it all of a sudden....V-Dash (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)