User talk:Chicken Wing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Stop-loss policy

Regarding the case of the National Guardsman who won in court because his IRR term already expired, I know the case occurred. Please allow me some time to find the exact citations. Thanks. Equinox137 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] commentary

hey sorry i saw someone else commented on rachel nicholes so i just added my two cents i apologize--E tac 00:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Seidlin article

There is currently a new discussion to merger Larry Seidlin's article with Anna Nicole Smith's article in its own separate section and deleting the Seidlin article. Back in February, you didn't think it was very newsworthy article and I'm betting you're thinking now that his 15 minutes of fame have long passed by as I have. Some people want to keep it because a rumored talk show that neither the alleged producer (CBS/CTD) nor Seidlin has officially confirmed; in fact, they won't even confirm any screentests, which is unusual unless it isn't happening and is just gossip. Therefore, since he's not newsworthy anymore or a historic figure, some users want to keep it due strictly to gossip and it's only an extremely-thin group of hard-core Anna fans totaling 4 people at the moment. I'd like to hear what you think. Please go to the Larry Seidlin talk page and put your two cents in.--Bamadude 00:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now, we only have 6 respondants. I culled through to find people who had previously taken a position on this or a related matter to post an opinion, but apparently taking a position isn't your bag anymore, so I'm sorry I bothered you.--Bamadude 01:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] home alone 2

so, i guess even you truly believe that there are no Christmas trees in south florida? If not, you obviously have never been there before. Darthvader1 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dread Central

I nominated it for a G4 deletion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dread Central, but couldn't find the 2nd one that you referred to on the talk page. My guess is that this is going to go to AFD again - could you give me the reference for the other prior AFD? Thanks. SkierRMH 06:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Muchas Gracias! I continually forget about that "feature"!SkierRMH 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Cowherd

Believe it or not, that's his real name, if you looked at the sources :) SirFozzie (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Colleges for example, are not in the habit of using fake names in their own followups on how successful their graduates are. The first source is: [1] Colin Cowherd ('85 BA radio-television) can be heard every weekday on ESPN radio interviewing the biggest newsmakers in sports as host of "The Herd." SirFozzie (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Damon Jones

I don't agree that information on the current season needs to be updated daily. That is why I used the "as of March 13" language. Obviously it would run the risk of getting stale if not updated regularly, but I would do my best to make sure it stays fairly current.

I won't make a big deal about it if you want to keep the information off the page, but I think that information on the current sports seasons is both relevant and very interesting and I have been working on updating and expanding all of the Cavaliers player pages as part of the Cavaliers Wiki Project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GUHoyas95 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I read through external link guidelines as well as spam guidelines. I am not sure how a link to student government of a University or a school newspaper of the University function as either spam or an unneccessary external link. If anything, to me, they seem to function under what should be linked in the external links catergory. Both sites contain pertinent information about school, its students, and its student life that cannot be worked into the article without copywright infringement. Just because they function as blogs in the OC domain server doesn't make them spam. I read through external link guidelines as well as spam guidelines. I am not sure how a link to student government of a University or a school newspaper of the University function as either spam or an unneccessary external link. Wandringpoet

Chicken Wing, not to pick a fight about the edits on the Oklahoma Christian University page, but similar links have existed on the Abilene Christian University page for quite while. Wandringpoet 05:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)User talk:Wandringpoet

[edit] Webster v. Doe

Chicken Wing, well done with Webster v. Doe! It's really impressive how well you followed the standards in the other case articles when you created this one. I'd encourage you to join the relevant wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. Cheers!--Kchase [lk:Kchase02|T]] 08:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [User_ta boilerplate welcome:


Welcome!

Hello, Chicken Wing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Thanks for the welcome. I actually didn't know that I was following any standards. I just took my notes on that case and wrote it out and wikified it. I'll try to look over the standards you guys have set up so I can follow them more precisely in the future. Chicken Wing 08:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:Lorieposes

Hi, Thanks for your note regarding the above user. Yes, I noticed that she had put a pic of herself on Negligee; she is evidently very single-minded in her intention to advertise herself and her website, and she persistently modified the Brassiere page in an attempt to do so despite repeated objections. I initially tried discussing the issue, but my patience has now worn pretty thin and I have begun going through the process of leaving warnings on her page. I will definitely escalate to a request for a block if it becomes necessary.

What she has done on the Negligee page is basically to follow the advice which another user left on her talk page - ie provide a GPL image, keep her web link off the article page itself, and use the image page as a more low-key means of promoting her website. I guess she regards this as second-best, but better than nothing. It's a difficult issue - it's a form of self-promotion, but at least she's not using the article to boost her Google rating, and she's giving something to Wikipedia in exchange for limited publicity. If she as an individual does that, I personally can live with it, although others might have a different view. There will however be a problem when lots of others running similar sites decide to do the same thing - I'm actually rather surprised it hasn't already happened. There is, I think, a limit to how many pics of women in brassieres or negligees an article can support, without ending up looking like a porn site directory. I'll keep an eye open for further developments --Stephen Burnett 12:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jacobson

The references are coming (a website and about four law review articles) ... I tend to prefer adding them after expansion is complete because it's easier to manipulate text that you're not sure is final when you don't have all the reference coding floating around (I suspect if we ever develop a WYSIWYG editing interface, we'll have a lot less problems with lengthy yet unreferenced articles). Daniel Case 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my interest in it ... I remember being intrigued by the 60 Minutes story. I also found it interesting that it was one of the few times Thomas has not voted with Scalia (and have often wondered if, given later disclosures about his porn interests, he had some empathy with Jacobson, as indeed one of the footnotes in Jack Chin's article suggests, that Scalia would not have).

I didn't intend for it to get so long ... just a result of doing all the research I could on it. But look at all the other entrapment cases I wrote up, too, as a result (I suppose I should work on improving the main entrapment article, too, which could use it). Daniel Case 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well ... thank you! I have been considering taking it to peer review, once I get it finished (the section on entrapment jurisprudence can be tightened up and made more connected to the case once I get the Casey article written and tidy up the appropriate sections of the entrapment article, and I need a couple more cites (airdate for 60 Minutes, for instance) and I suppose it would be ready. I'd love to go for bonus points, though ... some images, which are usually difficult to come by in court-case articles. But I bet Jacobson's booking photo might still be available, as well as covers of the fake catalogs or the political material the inspectors sent ... and those would be public domain. And maybe there's some sort of employee photo of Cal Comfort, too. And a screenshot from 60 Minutes. That would be my ideal for an FA of this. Daniel Case 06:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydroxycut

Ok, I agree & am satisfied with how it is now; I'll return to the article for MuscleTech some other time. Take care. --MMX 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristanna Loken

Actually I think the category is fine on the Kristanna Loken article since we have reliable sources, in particular the Curve magazine quoted in the article. The problem is there is no such source for Michelle Rodriguez so the category cannot be added to that article until we have one. You are absolutely right that we should keep a strict standard of evidence for all biographies of living people. Gwernol 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dread Central and Spam

Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided lists a long list of spam links to be avoided. Movie reviews are not included in that list. Dreadcentral (or any other horror review site for that matter) aren't 'mainstream' and thus probably wouldn't be in Rotten Tomatoes...but its certainly not spam or someone advertising the site.--CyberGhostface 00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely agree but I'll stop adding them. I wasn't aware of the extent of one person adding all the links.--CyberGhostface 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like you might be violating WP:3RR w/r/t the Sarah Michelle Gellar page. Maybe it's time to step back and let other people speak up on whether the Dread Central link should stay or not? Richwales 07:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[Quoting your reply on my talk page: "I don't think I've violated 3RR unless the rule is construed to mean any 24 hour span instead of one calendar day, in which case, I might have. But, removing spam and vandalism, as far as I can tell from the rule, is not a violation of 3RR anyway."]
Actually, it's my understanding that WP:3RR explicitly does refer to any 24-hour period, not a single calendar day (a concept which isn't well defined from a worldwide POV anyway). And although 3RR doesn't apply to reversion of "simple, obvious vandalism", this specific case appears to be a situation where reasonable people could honestly disagree. At least to me, it looks like you and Garda40 have been having an honest, sincere disagreement — each of you believing the other is the one committing vandalism. Richwales 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Until you posted this message on my talk page

Please, do not attempt to antagonize me in edit summaries. I see from your talk page that you have engaged in adding improper links and being disruptive in the past. Don't drag me in to this. Just let it go without trying to aggravate me. Chicken Wing 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring the subject up anymore.First of all I wasn't trying to antagonize you in edit summaries just pointing out writing "spam spam etc "makes it look like the work of a vandal whereas writing "Deleted spam link" looks like the work of a responsible editor

As for the allegation I have engaged in adding improper links and being disruptive in the past go read FLV history and talk page.I didn't put the links in originally but found them useful as did other people so when someone deleted them I put them back in and also tried to copyedit them to make them more acceptable .I also pointed out the logic of the original editor position re links and which they conceded was correct to another poster but which they then stopped following

I have no desire to keep any dispute going but just as you don't want to be antagonized neither do I and making allegations of improper editing and disruptive behavior doesn't help matters

If you didn't engage in the behavior mentioned on your talk page, then you should understand how loose language on someone's talk page and in edit summaries can damage someone else's reputation. Chicken Wing 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotton that I gave you the benefit of the doubt after the first weird message and only used the V word when you edited it again with a weird message not responding to the point I made in my edit summary .Loose language would be using the V word after the first edit

As for loose language on your talk page I didn't touch your talk page until today and only after you posted your message about me saying I engaged in adding improper links and making disruptive edits .I had no intention of posting here since the edit dispute seemed to be resolved Garda40 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing left to say to you. At this point, I'm convinced this is little more than an elaborate effort to get the last word. You've added no new noteworthy comments the last several times you've posted something. Wikipedia talk pages aren't chatrooms. Chicken Wing 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An elaborate effort to get the last word (which seems to be assuming bad faith on my part ) I wish it was but I felt I had to repeat my comments since you didn't seem to be getting the points I was making.As for the "last several times" I have up to that comment posted all of twice on your talk page and now three times .Since as I said earlier the edit dispute was resolved why post those comments about me and not expect a response .Feel free to respond to that questions and I promise not to respond so that you can have the last word if it means that much to you Garda40 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Kristanna Loken

Hey, let's discuss something here. First off: I apologize for trying to update "your" Kristanna info here on Wikipedia. I gave you my email hoping for you to contact me. But instead you just kept on reverting my updates. I am new to Wikipedia and was hoping for some co-operation. Why being so unfriendly? I would think that getting the info right would be the most important thing? You should visit the Norwegian Kristanna Wikipedia. Let's talk about this. --Seabris 02:03, 02 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emerald City Miracle

ESPN was a news network, the last time I checked. TheNewMinistry 07:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamebrink spammer

Thanks for the heads-up. I've removed most of the links (fortunately, it was only a few dozen, not hundreds). I left a few that might be considered "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" (per WP:EL) — specifically, when there was a link to a video about the game that didn't seem to be linked elsewhere. If the spamming continues, let me know and I'll block the IP. You might also want to discuss the links with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and Video Games; lots of the game articles had pretty big link farms, which invites spammers to add their sites. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the spammer came back and added another link to the site; I've blocked the IP. It's not an indefinite block, but if the spamming continues it will be. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The information regarding Melissa Keller is incorrect without the edits of Susannah Mills. There aren't any unsubstantiated links. Information regarding her sizes and resume were not up to date or correct with the version "Chicken Wing" writes.

[edit] On removing proposed deletion tags

Hi. I saw you had reinserted the prod tag on Marathoners after it was removed. I definitely agree with you that the article should be deleted. Process, however, dictates that if an editor has removed the tag, then the article should be sent to WP:AFD. (Incidentally, I have done so, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marathoners). Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 17:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've made my thoughts known on the Melissa Keller article. Despite the subject being pretty minor and despite the obvious conflict of interest in editing, I am pretty sure that the article would survive if it ended up going to WP:AFD so there's not much point in submitting it there. There really isn't much you can do about the whole thing except insist that every assertion be supported by reliable sources and if the conflict escalates, report it to WP:ANI. In the meantime, don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions on how to handle the problem. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 00:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MuscleTech

Hello, Chicken Wing. Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thanks! Yankees76 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted these edits again. There's little doubtCodiejenkins is inserting material that is original research, much of it speculatory; along with the edition of weasel words like "pays" when refering to bodybuilders who endorse the brand (it's implied that endorsed athletes are paid), and "numerous" - referring to lawsuits. Since these are hins only contributions to Wikipedia, I suspect that this is not NPOV editing. Please keep an eye on the article. He's been warned three times and has been already been reverted by 3 different editors. I would suggest you add a final warning for the instances you've reverted. Further insistances of not working with other editors and discussing his edits will get him blocked. Yankees76 14:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MuscleTech

(moved from user page, Gwernol 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)):

Explain to me what part of my edit is untrue or attacks MuscleTech. Codiejenkins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Codiejenkins (talk • contribs).

[edit] John Malcolm Duhé, Jr.

I see the deletion nomination for John Malcolm Duhé, Jr. has been withdrawn. Which is good, because Circuit Court of Appeals justices are inherently notable. --Eastlaw 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damon Jones

Sorry, I'm still learning what's what. --JJW20084 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

I hit the user with a {{uw-spam1}} and reverted their link. Links without content work == spam (more or less).

If the user does it again, revert with a plain, non-confrontational edit summary of "rv linkspam - see WP:EL for details".

Then add {{subst:uw-spam2}}~~~~ to the user's talk page. Leave a calm edit summary like "Spam-2".

If they do it again, repeat but use {{subst:uw-spam3}}~~~~ ("Spam-3").

Finally, revert again and use {{subst:uw-spam4}}~~~~ on their talk page ("Spam-4").

After that, if they do it again, report it here and after giving the user's details say "Asked to report this by User:Redvers if problem continued. Please see my talk page." Use "Spam" as an edit summary.

Hope this helps.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hannahrama

Editors are free to blank warnings; it's taken as indication they have read them. If the editor harasses you again, let me know and I'll deal with it. Now that she/he has been warned further behavior of this sort won't be tolerated.--Isotope23 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, it is confusing because different editors/admins have completely different personal views on warning removals. IMO, unless it is an accepted guideline or policy that they can't be removed it is best to just let it go.--Isotope23 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion moved from Clay Bennett's page

I have to ask Coz 11 to more carefully consider his edits to this article and related articles because of his conflict of interest. Coz, almost the entirety of your edits to this article present Bennett in a negative light. You've also attacked him in edit summaries and attacked other users in edit summaries regarding this issue. Please, if you can't edit this article in less biased manner, I have to ask you to recuse yourself from editing it and related articles at all. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what your problem is. Posting ANYTHING about his current activities is going to place him in a negative light. That is because of his actions not because of any bias. Second I looked back over the last few weeks of edit summaries and see nothing I have said that is an attack of any kind. I have no idea what your personal relationship is to Clay but if you can't work with people than maybe you should step away from these articles. --Coz (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I wrote that a while ago, but am sorry for "campaigning". It would be nice if you (Chicken Wing) would please be involved in more discussion and take a look at edits you revert more carefully. I am really sorry people have attacked you personally, but it doesn't hurt to tread more carefully when reverting. --DerRichter (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) I have no personal relationship with Clay. I don't know him, and I've never met him. I see no evidence anywhere in my edit history that suggests I have edited this article in anything other than a professional manner.
(2) Comments like "posting ANYTHING about his current activities is going to place him in a negative light" is terribly biased statement. His date of birth is missing. Information about his previous business activities is missing. There is plenty of information that could be added to the article that isn't negative. As far as I can tell, he's done one thing wrong that's noteworthy. He (allegedly) bought the Sonics in bad faith. Adding a paragraph to expand upon that one misdeed every time a new story runs is biased and gives undue weight to this one event. I’ve managed to add plenty of non-negative things to the article. Your comment above is perhaps evidence that you are, in fact, too biased to edit this article.
(3) Coz 11, you've attacked people in these edit summaries.[2], [3], [4]
(4) DerRichter, there's not much to discuss. Reverting vandalism and removing bias from the article shouldn't be in dispute. I've made approximately 41 edits to this article. In one edit, I unintentionally removed a "[" while removing spam from the article. This article has been vandalized so many times that it is permanently semi-protected and that removing biased statements has become a daily task. If you feel the error that I made warranted an entire paragraph on the talk page to the exclusion of everything else going on, then really, I have nothing to discuss.
The majority of this article's wording, sources, and structure are the results of my edits. This article's creation is the result of my edits. Much of the removal of bias and vandalism from this article is the result of my edits. Accusing me of anything, other than getting a little defensive at this point, borders on absurdity.
Now, think about this. I’ve got one of the leaders of an organization created largely to oppose the interests of Bennett asking me to step away from these articles. I’ve got another person, probably a Sonics fan from Washington, aware of my edits to the article and the vandalism to the article asking me to be more careful when editing the article. A literary critic would call it ironic. I call it ridiculous. Chicken Wing (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Chicken Wing, if you have an issue with the physical location of the editors that have so far shown enough interest to actually edit this article, then perhaps you should request assistance from the editors from a different location. I notice that WikiProject Oklahoma has been added as a tag at the top of the page and I know a couple members of that project are active on the Sonics page, so perhaps if you went to the project's talk page and requested some help with improving this article some of the editors there would be willing to assist you. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Chicken Wing. First let me say again that I think the attacks on you are inexcusable. As ugly as this situation gets I would hope the people of Seattle and Oklahoma City remember that they are also victims of the fraud and should not be attacking each other. That said I suggested you step away from it because you are crossing the line from editing to "attacking the messenger". Accusing people of bias simply because of their location, trying to silence other's efforts, and skirting the rules by intentionally trying to identify other contributors shows that you are letting things get under your skin. Those that you are attacking are responsible members of this community. Are they perfect? No, but they mean well and are reasonable to work with. If you can't get along with them then you are the one having the problem because all of these people have reputations for "playing well with others". --Coz (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to look at this dispute by Chicken Wing, and I guess I'll throw in my two cents. Chicken Wing, it's fine that you asked Coz to rescue himself if you feel that he should, but I would suggest letting it go unless you plan to pursue formal avenues. If you don't agree with a certain edit, there are dispute resolution measures you can take. However, I've looked at a few months of page history and Coz has been reasonable and collaborative. There have been no edit wars or other disruptions; in fact, there have been no hassles at all. That's what the collaborative editing process is about. For example, in the most recent edit by Coz ([5]) there was no obvious POV attached — except one sentence that needed smoothing out: "Recent developments have shown that the agreement was violated" (it should have been clear that the violation was alleged, and it was indeed changed). That being said, I do support the current shorter version.

Coz is obviously drawn to articles that interest him, like anyone else. It's good when editors are motivated to be involved in an article as long as they remain civil and willing to collaborate as Coz and other parties have done here. I'm not saying everyone has been completely civil with regards to assuming good faith, but nothing appears out of hand. I don't see any disruptive issues going on, so all I would tell everyone is keep up the good work and if any specific edits ever come under dispute, take the dispute resolution route. As for the edit summaries that involve me ([6], [7]), that's just water under the bridge. Okiefromokla questions? 01:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds agreeable. Although I think Coz saying that I should cease editing the article is quite dramatic. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Okiefromokla for his comments. This is a prime example of what i was talking about. He and I have not seen eye to eye on some things, took a while to sort it out, but in the end have come to a middle ground. But CW I think you misunderstood my point. I was making the point that if you can't work with others then maybe this isn't the place for you. I think I made my point I just hope you saw it the way it was intended. I am going to consider this situation resolved so we can move on. --Coz (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I can work with people just fine. I've made thousands of edits on Wikipedia with minimal trouble. Again, I'm not adding biased information to articles. I don't have a conflict of interest. And, I don't remove comments from my talk page. I don't call on people to recuse themselves from editing when they haven't done anything inappropriate. I don't use edit summaries abusively. I'm sorry, but there's really no comparison. Consider the issue resolved if you will, but it will remain an issue if your edits to the Clayton Bennett article remain as unconstructive as they have been just in the past week. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we are getting to the root of your problem. While everyone is trying to tell you that you are off base, and I am trying to make peace so we can move on, you continue to want to inflame the situation. I guess my suggestion that you take a deep breath, step away from the computer, and learn to get along with others is even more appropriate. --Coz (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't concern yourself with anything that might or might not be my problem. The Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith. Given that I haven't violated in policies, there is no reason to think anything other than that I am editing in good faith. Your claim that everyone is telling me I am off base just isn't founded. It appears that most people concluded that your edit summaries and addition of biased comments into articles were inappropriate but that it's not nearly so much that you should be prevented from editing the article. I haven't committed policy violations while editing this article, but you have -- that speaks for itself. Just edit the article without adding anything that's biased, and everything will go fine. Don't worry about making any other suggestions to me. Much more time has been spent on this issue at this point than is necessary. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Pot, why are you calling the Kettle Black? When you decided to concern yourself with me you opened up the door to others being concerned about you. If the policy is to assume good faith then you are using a double standard by not assuming that in my case. You have committed policy violations and were called out on them in other places. The ONLY thing you are right on is that more time has been wasted on major non-issue because you can't get along. Just give it up and move on. I know you will want to have the last word, no problem but I won't see it because I am taking your talk page off my watch list. Waste someone elses time. --Coz (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that you take a more mature approach than basically saying that you're getting the last word and running away. That won't help resolve the situation, no matter how petty. I would also advise you not to make personal attacks, as those violate Wikipedia policy. I would also ask you not to claim I have violated Wikipedia policies when I haven't. Later editors may see your comments and think that I am the owner of a disruptive account, when in reality I haven't been reprimanded for committing any policy violations.
"When you decided to concern yourself with me you opened up the door to others being concerned about you." That comment doesn't reflect Wikipedia policy. It's just a bitter if-you-get-me-I'll-get-you-back approach. I don't think other Wikipedia editors are going to concern themselves with me just because I've shown "concern" for you. I've dealt with spammers, vandals, and people with conflicts of interest before. Most of the time they are dealt with for being in violation. On rare occasion, as appears to be your situation, the community seems to feel that you haven't committed such egregious policy violations as to rise to the level of requiring formal action.
I haven't assumed bad faith on your part either, so I again have to ask you not to say such things about other editors that can't be proven. I assume that you're attempting to make Wikipedia a better place. However, it's possible that what you feel makes the articles better and what actually makes the articles better under Wikipedia guidelines are two incompatible philosophies. Chicken Wing (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This is your war, not mine. I have said countless times if you want to discuss edits to content I am willing. I am just not going to get caught up in your "attacking the messenger" agenda. --Coz (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Clayton Bennett

You had been warned about calling people liars on talk pages. Previously, you referred to David Stern as a liar and a man with zero credibility. Now, you've used edit summaries to call Bennett a man of no integrity and have referred to him as a liar on his talk page. Your attacks against people on talk pages must end now. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, I'm informing you that I opened up a discussion here[8]. It would have been better if these issues could have been fixed without it, but you left me no choice by removing comments from your page, skipping out on the discussion on my talk page, and continuing to refer to people as liars on talk pages. Chicken Wing (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have always told you I am willing to talk about edits to articles I am just not willing to participate in your little witch hunt. It is amazing that in all the articles I participate in YOU are the only one that has a problem. Other editors have told you I am reasonable and willing to work with you, just not willing to engage in your petty little attacks. That should tell you which one of us is off base. --Coz (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It's just not true that I am the only one that has a problem. You continue to walk a fine line on numerous policies involving civility, assuming good faith, conflict of interest, neutral point of view, etc. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coz

Just taking this off Coz's talk page since it isn't really applicable to him. Last I checked, Aubrey McClendon is not an editor here, so I don't see how WP:BAIT applies.. I have no idea why you keep trying to extend WP:CIVIL to the subjects of an article. I have never seen it applied in such a manner and you're unlikely to find anyone that is willing to expand it in such a manner. Your warning for the McClendon edit summary is more indicative of you being oversensitive than it is of Coz violating any Wikipedia's policies. You've been on Wikipedia for long enough that you really should have developed a thicker skin by now and realized that there are going to editors that are difficult to deal with and at times this means you have to learn to ignore comments they make. I've seen you make complaints about Coz on WP:AN/I, WP:COI/N, and WP:WQA and yet he hasn't received a single warning from an administrator because of this. There's a rather good reason for this, in comparison to what passes for incivility here on Wikipedia, Coz isn't even a blip on the radar. Seriously, take a stroll through AN/I and see what it takes to get a warning here on Wikipedia. As to why I'm "defending" Coz... I believe my first edit as Bobblehead[9] should give you a pretty good indicator of how long I've been dealing with Coz and his mannerisms. It's less about defending Coz and more about teaching people how to deal with him. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Although, Bobblehead, you have to admit that there is something wrong with needing to "teach people how to deal with him". While Chicken Wing's recent complains about the edit summaries seem a little overly sensitive to me as well, there is no denying that Coz edits with a fairly obvious POV and doesn't seem willing to change, although I thought he was in the process of changing until recently. Perhaps instead of teaching people how to deal with him, we should focus our efforts more on trying to teach him how to be a better editor, and be forceful when his POV makes things difficult. I feel somewhat limited in this regard because I'm not viewed as a neutral party (because of my name, not my edits) so anything I said to him won't hold much weight. Maybe a request for comment on Coz will get him to reevaluate himself. Okiefromokla complaints 02:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to be concerned about how thick or thin-skinned I am. I've dealt with a lot of spammers, vandals, etc. Coz isn't the worst. But, he's probably the only one that people seem willing to defend. First, I'd like to point out that in the times he's been referred for policy violations, most of the time there hasn't been a response good or bad. Part of the reason, I assume, is because Coz doesn't do anything too terrible. What I've had enough of, is that he has been mildly terrible for months now. Basically, he's exhausted my patience. (As a side note, I wasn't saying Coz was baiting McClendon. He's baiting other editors to continue warring with him. A less inflammatory use of edit summaries would probably make Coz's edits go down a lot better.)
Let's take a stroll through some of Coz's comments and edits:
He accuses me of attacking him: "That said I suggested you step away from it because you are crossing the line from editing to "attacking the messenger""[10]
Blatantly inflammatory rhetoric: "Just be careful what you wish for."[11]
A blatant lie about me: "He has also violated many WP rules..."[12]
Unconstructive rhetoric: "...I am reasonable and willing to work with you, just not willing to engage in your petty little attacks."[13]
False accusations: "I am just not going to get caught up in your "attacking the messenger" agenda."[14]
Character attack on Stern: "The man has zero credibility and is a documented liar."[15] (That comment borders on being defamatory.)
Rudeness: "What it will take is for you to stop bringing it up as a topic. Sheesh."[16]
Bad use of an edit summary: "Last attempt to get CW back on track"[17]
Incivility: "Bobblehead is right, if you can't get along then find some way to mind your own business"[18]
Bad edit summary: "Removed sour grapes rant."[19]
"Do you know what a lie is? It is a man making statements that are not true. It has been shown that Bennett has been lying every step of the way and that statement in the article is untrue."[20] (This edit combines borderline defamatory statements with an incorrect definition of what a lie is.)
Possible NPOV, CIVIL, NPA, and AGF violations rolled into one sentence: "I know your agenda is to show that Seattle is a failure and OKC is the white knight looking to bail the NBA out of this miserable situation but please try and allow a little balance to the articles please?"[21]
That's just this month. In the past he has attacked Clay Bennett, Jeff Fisher, and other editors in edit summaries, on talk pages, and in articles. Any one of these offenses by themselves is so minor as to go under the radar. Even a handful of edits like this could just be considered a hot-tempered editor. With Coz, it's edit after edit and day after day for months. His editing style isn't as flagrant as a vandal or openly hostile POV pusher. At the same time, his editing is even more destructive than people like that. Their edits and intents are obviously bad and can be universally spotted as wrong. Coz, on the other hand, has successfully spent months inserting POV comments into articles while at the same time irritating constructive editors, accusing them of bias, rule-breaking, vandalism, and a host of other unsubstantiated claims. I'm tired of his style of editing, and I'm no longer willing to extend good faith to his comments that dance the tightrope of the rules regarding civility, POV, etc.
Another point, I'm fully aware of the situation, and Coz isn't. Coz (and I'm only speculating) probably thinks that I'm just one rogue editor out to get him. He has said that I'm on a witch-hunt, so I think it's a fair bit of speculation on my part. On the other hand, I'm fully aware that you and DerRichter think that I need to back off of Coz a little. Even people like Okie and Noble Story, editors on "the other side", probably think I've been more harsh with Coz than I should be. My reasoning for taking a stronger tone than even they have taken is that I've tired of his flaunting of the rules. I'm tired of his attacks on editors and public figures. I'm tired of his false claims, and I'm tired of his rudeness. I'm tired of his POV pushing. Why should I have to spend hours checking up on the edits of one user, reading his attacks, responding to his attacks, and then defending myself when I get tired of his silliness? That's not the way this should be working. On balance, Coz is an unconstructive editor. If I'm wrong about anything here, please let me know, but I think I have accurately assessed this situation. Chicken Wing (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, Chicken Wing. But as Bobblehead said, I don't know if there's much we can do. My main complaint about Coz is that he is difficult to work with because of, among other things, his constant assumption of bad faith. I have been a regular victim of this because I am assumed to be "on the other side", as you say, simply because of my name. This, along with his obvious conflict of interest and strong point of view, can disrupt the workings of the article. Granted, it has not been happening as much as when I first began working on the article. But it hasn't totally stopped, and it does dusturb me how an editor like Coz would need another to 'teach others how to deal with him' for so long. There is indeed something wrong with that. Okiefromokla complaints 19:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Welcome to Wikipedia where borderline cases are left to run amok. Peppering Coz's talk page with warnings for what are essentially minor infractions, if that, isn't going to result in the desired effect. If you feel that Coz (or any editor for that matter) is acting in a manner that is disruptive, head on over to WP:3O and/or WP:RFC/U and start down the dispute resolution path.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I had hoped the etiquette alert, an informal beginning point for dispute resolution, was going to bring some order, but it ended up becoming a big argument without any actual outside response. Rather than moving on to another step of dispute resolution, I'll let it go for now. If he adds blatant POV/COI edits to articles, I'll just revert them, if necessary, without incident. I won't make a big deal about his rudeness, needless commentary, or the usual minor indiscretions. Some things just have to be let go, I suppose. But, if he attacks other editors or obviously assumes bad faith, then the dispute resolution process heats up again. Hopefully, you will admit that comments like this[22] about other editors just can't be tolerated. If we can avoid stuff like that, maybe everything will be okay. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
A small request. If you decide to do anything else about Coz, such as a RFC/U, could you tell me? I would support such an action if the circumstances warrant it, as you say. I didn't know about the Wikiquette, COI, and others, and I'd like to participate next time. Thanks! Okiefromokla complaints 03:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Noted. His edits today were pretty bad even by his standards, completely fabricating statements and then accusing other people of removing sourced material. I don't think the guy wants to be malicious, so I just don't get what happened today. Chicken Wing (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to Dallas-Fort Worth Meetup

Hi! Hello! Howdy! You've been invited to the Dallas/Fort Worth meetup (part of Wikipedia:Meetup). If you are interested, visit our page and sign up and suggest something, or help us decide where and when the next meeting will be. Cheers!
Message delivered by SteveCrossinBot (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improved traffic around KeyArena

Just as an FYI, I rewrote your addition to the Sonics move page. Main reason is I think you incorrectly summarized Nickels answers. This is particularly true in regards to the "Mercer Mess". The Sonics moving out of KeyArena would not mean that there would be improved traffic in general, it just means traffic would be slightly less crappy than it currently is on game day only. The "Mercer Mess" is a 365 day issue in Seattle with it not being uncommon for it to take 30-45 minutes to go the mile or so down Mercer St. to I-5 on non-game days. Game day traffic just makes it a 45-60 minute trip.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with your re-write. I tried to keep all the information in one sentence, so I largely ignored his explanations of his answers. Chicken Wing (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your desire to keep it short, but it came across as oversimplified. But hey, that's why Wikipedia has multiple editors. I just wanted to explain why I edited your addition since I couldn't do it properly in the edit summary.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JeanLatore/Edit Summaries

i used some, thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Try to be more constructive"? Just who are you to use that kind of tone with me? My contributions to the article itself are much more "constructive" than anything you have added to it. I find your attitude to be unnecessarily imperious and unsupported by any "constructive" article editing, as evidenced by your LACK of positive data contributions.JeanLatore (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)