User talk:Grant Chuggle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] May 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Sami Brady Roberts. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites ({{{url}}} in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Sami Brady Roberts with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Sami Brady Roberts with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Sami Brady Roberts saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hint

The correct version of the article has now been restored. Don't do things like this. DGG 23:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

This is your last warning. Do not post copyrighted material simply copy & pasted from websites as you did on Tony DiMera. Garion96 (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assumptions

Do not put assumptive content on pages as you did with Santo DiMera. There is no evidence of your assumptions about a daughter. This is also true for EJ Wells, you cannot assume his name is Banks as it is obvious from his first days in Salem that his name is legally Wells as Max and the police officer knew him by that name. IrishLass0128 15:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Again, do not put assumptions on the Santo DiMera page. There is no evidence that SANTO had any additional children or step children. There is no blood evidence that Andre is Stefano's nephew as he was not even considered when a donor for Stefano was trying to be found. Assumptions cannot be part of Wikipedia articles. IrishLass0128 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

Vandalism is removing verified content. A retcon section added to the Santo DiMera section deals with the changing of past storylines by current writers. The retcon section addresses the fact that prior mentioned children no longer exist. What was previously verifiable through Stefano's words is not verifiable content for the Santo DiMera article. Please see retcon to understand why only Stefano DiMera can be included in the Santo DiMera page.IrishLass0128 17:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

You cannot tell an editor that you "feel sorry for them" in regards to their editing of an article, nor can you use all caps to "yell" at them over an article. Assumptions are NOT part of verifiable content and can, therefore, NOT be added to articles. Regardless of Stefano's claims, there is no proof of any relationship to Santo by anyone other than that seen on screen. The retcon section is not for personal opinion, it is to address changes to the storyline by the current writing team. Personal attacks in the edit summary are not allowed. If you disagree with an edit, see the talk page first. Do not personally attack another editor.IrishLass0128 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three-revert rule

Please be aware that our Three-revert rule states that you can only revert information on a page three times in a 24-hour period. Instead, discuss your edits on the article's Talk page to build consensus. 41.241.125.136 You are removing grammar errors when you revert to your personal opinions. The next revert will be beyond three in 24 hours. Using multiple IP addresses to get around this rule violates the spirit of Wikipedia.IrishLass0128 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked!

You have been blocked for a period of a multitude of sins, namely disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, and incivility for 72 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case 03:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of one week for continued use of sockpuppets in a futile attempt to evade an existing block. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of one month for further use of sockpuppets to evade your block. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This time I'm semi-protecting the page, as well. Daniel Case 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request or not, I'm adding a week more for the latest one. Daniel Case 16:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Appeal to not remove block. As the recipient of his invitation to "suck his c---" (although he used the full word), he has posted pictures of full frontal nudes in the sandbox, told the world who he was "f-ing" (again, spelling out the word), invited anyone who read the sandbox to "suck his...." He defied all his blocks and denied knowing there was a block, and continues to put his opinion in articles rather than fact. He falsly accuses others of vandalism when reverting his edits that are made while he's block and are violations of the MOS. He's defied consensus on how articles should be worded. Ignores the MOS for editing. Insists on placing unverified content in articles. Uses multiple accounts and multiple sockpuppets to evade blocks and ignore warning messages. He ignores warning and pretends the talk pages do not exist when he is warned on his new sockpuppet. He edits other users talk pages without permission changing messages left to other editors about him, and adds vulgar words to those messages. This editor has made personal attacks and his contrition is false. He also ignores general grammar rules and continually changes correctly spelled words to incorrectly spelled words, i.e. pursue to pErsue. Lastly, he has little to no self control and when he gets angry, gets abusive in the edit summaries and on talk pages. Please, do not repeal his block. If he serves his time without bypassing the block that he knows about and doesn't "play dumb" and use another sockpuppet account, then he should be let back, but he needs to serve his time. In my opinion. Thank you for listening to my agrument not to remove the block.CelticGreen 17:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unfounately all that CelticGreen has said is true and when it is all put into words I realise all the terrible things that I have done. As I stated before, I am not asking for the block to be removed but rather for it to be reduced. I too would like to serve out my punishment, as I feel very guilty about what I have done. I am so sorry CelticGreen for some of the comments I have made to you. You are right about me loosing my temper, but I promise that from now on I will try my hardest to control it. Whether my block is reduced or not, I will either way not edit any pages, even though my IP address my allow. I once again want to apoligise to all who I have offended.Grant Chuggle 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• How about if we wait a week in which I promise not to edit any pages and then if I keep my prmise, we can set a date for the block to be lifted at that point. Grant Chuggle 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, no compromise to your block, not in my opinion. While it is wonderful that you have admitted your "sins" and apologized, the repeated bypassing of the block by using an anonymous IP rather than signing in is further proof you knew that if you signed in you would be blocked. Five weeks for the multiple repeated offenses is appropriate at this point. Additional notes: no Marine is ever an ex-Marine. They are former Marines. Semper fidelis is the cry of the Marines and it means always faithful. A Marine is always a Marine, you are NEVER an ex-Marine. Those are the things people try and change that you revert to your opinion. Journalism 101 you learn to never call someone an "ex" of certain occupations. As a "teen" you have a lot to learn, you should allow people to teach you and not get so out of control. But that is just my advice, done in good faith.CelticGreen 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice CelticGreen and I am glad that we can finaly agree and call a truce. Although I do believe that at times there is nothing wrong with a friendly debate, howver ours got out of hand and I am truly sorry for that. Just for the record however I did not intentionaly add that info about Ex-marines, while it is possible that I simply reverted to an older version of that page, which had those edits, I myself never wrote it. Anyway glad that all this nonsense is in the past. Now it is time for me to start doing my time or waiting out my time. LOL Grant Chuggle 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• How about, just stop disrupting and ask again in a while, and hope for the best. I see no reason why 5 weeks is an inappropriate length of time, though. Mangojuice^talk 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• He's back to evading the blocks. He did it yesterday and this morning. I reversed his edits noting that his is blocked and using sockpuppets to avoid his block again. I've also reported him.IrishLass0128 12:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am Sorry

Please Daniel could you post messages to CelticGreen and Irishlass and tell them how sorry I am for being a thorn in their sides and for using words that I am not too proud of. I would post it to them myself, but I can't since I am blocked. I would like to try and find some kind of truce even if my block is not reduced. It would make me feel much better and hopefully take away my guilt. Grant Chuggle 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

They can read and post here, as they already seem to have done. I'm glad you're sorry ... it took about half a dozen blocks, but better that than nothing.

But there are some things in your unblock requests that still concern me. Let's go over them again.

It is just that my computer constantly changes my IP address and I always forget to log on.

Your ISP has a dynamic IP system, then. Yes, it's very convenient for evading blocks, as many AOL users have learned. But why would you "forget" to log on when you knew what you would see if you did ... the block notice? It's just as easy to presume that you realized you could edit, and went ahead, as you admitted: "So I often forget that I have been blocked and I go and edit pages under my 'new' IP address." Given how frequent the communications to you and the other accounts were, I have a little trouble believing you just forgot you were blocked. You saw a loophole, and you exploited it.

But you should have realized how easy it was to recognize you when you started doing the exact same things. Yet you didn't. Why? You answered that question already:

And the reason I have been having edit wars, is that when I believe in something, I like things to go that way

This is very disturbing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It is not about always getting your way. It's about learning to work well with others and give and take. You won't always get your way, not on Wikipedia and certainly not always in real life.

If you'd like to see where that mentality leads you, read this. And consider these people ... they all liked to have things go their way, and see where it got them.

If you'd like to learn to do things the right way while you're blocked, read this, this and this. And also consider editing some other articles when you get back. Like your hometown, your favorite food etc. ... things that aren't likely to start similar conflicts. Lots of users have gotten in trouble over fiction-related articles because they couldn't grasp the difference between being a fan and being an editor. If you're going to be one, avoid them. Daniel Case 05:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He's obviously not that sorry. He's back to editing under IP 41.241.14.55 and right back to his old ways. Violating the MOS, adding characters that are not onscreen or born yet and the like. He can "believe" all he wants but until a child is born on a show and given a name, you cannot put names a character has "tossed out" as possible baby names. That is not verified fact. This has been discussed before and explained to me by other editors. This is not my rule, it just is what is expected of Wikipedia articles that they contain fact. I'll be reporting you again. IrishLass0128 15:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donna Logan suggestions

Could I please ask that someone improove the family and relationships section on the Donna Logan article. It only lists parents, siblings and nephews (which is spelt wrong and doesn't list all her nephews and neices). Then her former fiancee Thorne (spelt wrong) is also listed under this section. Just wanted to let whoever reads this know. Thanks. Grant Chuggle 07:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank You to whoever took care of this. Grant Chuggle 07:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony DiMera

Hi, I have noticed that the infomation on Tony DiMera's character history has all been copied and pasted from Soapcentral. I know that I before have tried to do this and it was removed. I believe that there is some sort of copy right on it or something. It needs to be rewritten or otherwise deleted. Thanks. Grant Chuggle 09:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you will look, it's been edited and it is sourced. You probably didn't source. You need to stop editing everything, including your page. This is just as much a violation as you editing articles yourself. I thought you were suspended or blocked. It is ridiculous that you can still do this sort of thing. IrishLass0128 12:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are blocked from editing for a reason. If you do a one on one comparison, you'll see I did copy some things but also referenced Soap Central as a source. There are also corrections, removals, information from NBC about the character. Do not continue to make assumptions about articles without fact. You are blocked and should not be editing. Personally I think your block should be extended based on these continued actions and false allogations.CelticGreen 12:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good I do apologise, it is just that I did not relise that it had been sourced. I will double check next time.Grant Chuggle 13:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• How about you just take your time out and stop attempting to find ways to circumvent your block?? Stop questioning other editors, that is what got you in trouble in the first place. Serve your time and stop this behaviour. That would be a start. Your continued behaviour proves you should be banned permanently.CelticGreen 13:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI ~ regarding your constant changing of STEP to LEGAL. If Tony was Renee's "legal" brother, it would have been ILlegal for them to have been together. Because he was the son of the gardener Enrico, and never Stefano's legal son ~ there was no adoption ~ Stefano's children were never legally related to him. Therefore they remain, now and forever, his step siblings, not "legal" siblings. That's just another one of many edit violations you continue to make.CelticGreen 21:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest block extension

After this latest sock, it is now up to two months. This is after two unblock requests were declined. After your apology and explanation that you keep "forgetting" you're blocked and just go right at it again. After I suggested you consider editing articles about things other than Days of our Lives characters.

You are rapidly losing your right to have other users assume good faith about you. I have been patient because it's part of my responsibilities. But that patience is running out. I will not rule out going to an indefinite block if this happens again anytime soon. And if that happens and no one wants to unblock you within any length of time, you, Grant Chuggle, will have become a banned user.

I also won't rule out contacting your ISP, too, although to be honest I'm not sure what they might or might not do. But you might want to consider that, in blocking every IP you've used, you have inconvenienced not just yourself but other Telkom SA customers who might not be happy to find a message from Wikipedia accusing them of doing evil things. That's right, we know what ISP you're using, and I wonder why it is that you claimed to be an American when you use a South African ISP and Commonwealth spellings. It doesn't work for your credibility too well.

Cards are on the table, Grant, and they aren't looking too good. If you're claiming to be an American, you should understand what I mean when I tell you you're behind in the count. Like, 0 and 2 behind. Daniel Case 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that there has been a misunderstanding. You see we have one internet line for my whole house, which has three computers. My sister, who has her own computer was Hen55, while I am Grant Chuggle. My brother on the other hand has not bothered to sign up on wikipedia and he edits without a username, as he only didcovered wikipedia yesterday, after I complained about being blocked. He is the one who whatches Bold and has edited those pages, while me ans my sister prefer Days and we edit those pages. I have never claimed to be an American and if you read the Santo DiMera talk page you will see that I even mentioned that I was not an American. I hope that this can clear everything up. I have warned my siblings about my block, but my brother has continued to edit the pages. Grant Chuggle 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• On the contrary, you have claimed to be American when I pointed out Days was an AMERICAN soap opera, you claimed to be living in America. You are the one who said "Clean up the ????? Logan page" and it was hit today. Hen55 claimed to be married and living in America also, but the IP address says differently. I have brothers and sisters too, but none of us have the same IP address beginnings. Yours is very obvious. IF indeed you aren't these other people or it wasn't you, you'll have to face the consiquences that your actions affect other people. The edits today were identical to previous edits made by you. The edits "you" and "Hen55" made were word for word, misspelled word for misspelled word identical. That's how you were discovered. I'd be thanking whoever that you aren't banned for using multiple account names to vandalize articles. IrishLass0128 16:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just for the record, here's the Hen55 edit in question. Daniel Case 02:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• And here, to be fair, is one of Grant's anonymous sockpuppets saying he is not. Daniel Case 02:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Correction, I asked for the Donna Logan page to be cleaned up and it has not been cleaned up. We have one rooter in my house, which means even though we have lots of computers, we all use the same internet connection.Grant Chuggle 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Same thing, it was a Logan page and the IP was blocked very quickly and all changes reversed. All houses use the same IP address regardless of how many routers. At my previous job we had 55 computers and they all had the same IP address. Here I have five all the same IP. At home, three, all the same IP. That's how IP addresses work.IrishLass0128 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Would you call the Eric Brady page and the Colleen Brady page the same, just because they are both Brady pages. I don't think son. Just because two character are related and have the same surname, does not mean that their articles are the same. As for the sibling thing, I off course discuise Days with them and they have similar beliefs to me, which would mean that some of Hen55's edits would be similar to mine, but others if you look carfully are very different. As for the America thing, I have never claimed to live in America and I have lived in South Africa since I was born. My older sister (Hen55), however lived in America for two years before, but now she has returned to South Africa. Thanks Grant Chuggle 07:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• You may believe that I am stupid, but I certainly hope that you don't believe that I am stupid enough to spend enough of my time to make a heartfelt apology (which I really mean) and then the next day go straight back to editing.

Oh and for the record, the point of a block is to protect Wikipedia, not to punish editors. And in my opinion since I, nor any of my siblings have vandilised an article since these blcoks were put in place, there is really no reason to have them. The best thing to do, would be to remove all the blocks and then I will agree to always sign in. Then if you see one article vandilised by Grant Chuggle or anyone you suspect to be me, you can ban me for life. The same goes if I ever "abused" another editor. Grant Chuggle 08:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• You continue to creatively ask for your blocks to be removed but it's not going to happen. You seem to have the wrong impression about blocks. You are blocked because you have vandalized articles, adding your personal opinion, and have posted pictures of naked women and have told people to do vile things to you. Your block is deserved and your continual bypassing of the blocks makes your extensions further deserved. Obviously you don't seem to feel you need to stop making comments or stop editing. You need to step away from Wikipedia and serve your time.CelticGreen 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I also notice you are AGAIN editing other editors comments by looking at the history of the page. You have been warned about doing that and yet you still do it. You have lessons to learn, that's what this block is about. Daniel has given you options that you seem to want to continually ignore. You need to stop. I won't report you this time, but I'm sure Daniel will see it.CelticGreen 20:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• There seems to be a missunderstanding. You see in IrishLass0128's original message she made a mention about me editing the Brooke Logan page after I had asked for it to be fixed. But if you read the above post, you will see that I in fact asked for the Donna Logan page to be edited. IrishLass0128 quickly went and edited her post after I informed her of this. She wanted to try and proof that I had been bypassing my block. Check further into this pages history if you don't believe me. Grant Chuggle 20:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• FACT ~ you cannot change other editors contributes to talk pages. YOU DID THAT. If she changed it to a few question marks, she's allowed to do so to correct her error; you are not allowed to change it back and then have HER name signed at the end. You did it to one of my messages on Flyer's page where you changed the words "man parts" and obviously did not learn your lesson. Your continual violation of policy is precident for you to be banned but for now you are mearly blocked. We are allowed to correct our errors, you are not allowed to correct other people and have their names signed by it. Edits are TRACKED so if someone corrects their errors they aren't doing it to cover anything up, they are doing it to correct what they said. You can no longer be trusted. This time it seems appropriate to report your continued abuse. Additionally, there was nothing "to prove (not proof)" your IP identifies you as bypassing the block.CelticGreen 21:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest block extension

You have been blocked for a period of three months for continuing to use sockpuppets. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And again ...

You have been blocked for a period of six months for yet another sockpuppetry incident. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• This morning editor has used 2 new IP addresses to evade the block again. All edits were reversed regardless of contribution as you are not to be editing in the first place. You have been reported to Yamla and Daniel. IrishLass0128 12:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked indefinitely

You clearly have no intention of abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have now been blocked indefinitely. This should be easy for you to remember as it is a simple rule. You are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. If you continue editing Wikipedia, your abuse will be reported to your ISP. --Yamla 14:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goodbye

• Delete my account. I have had it with Wikipedia. I have only ever tried to improve the articles on this site, but unfortunatly I have been punished for this. They say that anybody can edit wikipedia, but in the last few months I have learnt that this is not true. They only people who really have say are the long time editors, with the right "conections". I mean who cares about what the boy from Africa thinks. I however believe that I least have made some significant improvements to certain articles, so at least I have left some sort of mark on Wikipedia. I also know that in the past I have done some things that I am not to proud of and there is no excuse for them. It is just that with all the problems that there have been with my family and all the problems with Africa, I just sometimes found it easier to take my anger out on someone who lives 5000 miles away. But I am sorry for that. Anyway I just wanted to write and say goodbye to Wikipedia and to all the editors. So Long. Please feel free to delete my account. Thanks. Grant Chuggle 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Grant Chuggle for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Daniel Case 05:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Hi. Please can I be unblocked so that I can show you all that I have changed during my time away. All I want to do is improve the quality of the already excellant articles. Thanks for hearing me out. Grant Chuggle 15:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how just as I voice suspicion over new editor MaryPoppins878, an editor that has caused disruption and plead innocent to understanding Wikipedia yet makes the exact type of changes you make, you show back up pleading to be let back in. I don’t think you’ve learned any lessons since being gone, or that you even were really gone. I think the indefinite block should stand. I also believe MaryPoppins878 should be investigated now. Too coincidental that you show up right after I question MP. IrishLass0128 15:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My New Life

Hi all you guys. I would just like to let you all know that I have moved on to Soapcentral. It is a great site and I will be improving it even more. I will soon be writing the Friday recaps for Days of Our Lives. I just wanted to let you all know that I have changed from all my past mistakes and that I still love Wikipedia and continue to read it. I am not going to ask to be unblocked but hopefully in time I can prove that I have changed and can be let back in even if it is under the whatchful eye of IrishLass. I kind of miss our edit wars. LOL. But IrishLass and CelticGreen are two spunky chicks and I think if I was paired with them we could certainly make a great difference to Wikipedia. Oh, well a guy can dream. You never know maybe one day we can be on the same side. Cheers. Grant Chuggle 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to upload an image even though I am blocked. I am sure that you are all dying to see the infamous GrantChuggle. Grant Chuggle 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So glad I know the people over there. I'll be dropping them a note about your antics here and hopefully your time there will be short lived. We have quite a case against you and I never enjoyed the edit wars. Although you must have since you created so many accounts. That is a sad, sad fact. It's time to admit defeat and move far away from soap operas in general. The advantage, the true advantage, is I can now point to this page as proof that soapcentral is completely unreliable and "just" a fan site. IrishLass 17:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am getting tired of trying to polite to you and being treated with disrespect in return. What more do you want from me. I admit defeat and I have left Wikipedia and began to something else that I love. But yet you want to ruin this for me. I know I have made a few mistakes. But I have never intentionaly vandilised a page. And don't you dare try and say anything else. And yes by the way I was MaryPoppins and of course you are all so smart and you caught me but I am not this Collatjie person. Please I have made mistakes but I am now turning over a new leaf. Grant Chuggle 17:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What's done, is done. I've notified three people and posted a public message to all about you. You have not "made a few mistakes", you have made many, many vandilisms against Wikipedia. We are not concerned with Colaatje, they have gone for now. We are concerned with you and your many, many sockpuppets. Sadly, you have not left. You were here this morning still pretending to not be MaryPoppins and pretending you didn't understand why you were blocked knowing full well why you were blocked. You may be done here, but with any luck you are also done at soapcentral as far as editing is concerned. I've offered my considerable services to the editors there to prove you are nothing more than a vandal. May they give you the same boot Wikipedia did. IrishLass 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My work here is complete!! I have successfully put a block on any contributes you may think you're going to make at SC by notifying the editor in charge ~ who said you were crazy that he didn't have anyone assigned to write synopsis for Days yet. Your volunteer post has been removed, and the top guy at SC has a link to your many, many ills heaped upon Wikipedia, especially those done to the Days pages. You can certainly play at SC, but they'll be keeping an eye out for you. As will I if you try and come back again. Have a nice life IrishLass 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soaps.com

Just thought that I would inform you that this is one of the most reliabble sites on the net. They will not even list comings and goings until they have been confirmed by the show itself or one of the actors. They would not even list Renee Jones' exit until it was confirmed by James Reynolds even after SOW had reported this. Now I garentee that the character that Ashlee Holland will be playing will be called Crystal and I don't think that it is fair to readers that rely on Wikipedia for Days of our Lives updates and yet it is so behind. Grant Chuggle (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

NOT TRUE!! Soaps.com is a fan site and has given many "speculations" as fact. They recently said Lucas catches Sami and EJ in a kiss. Not true, they were kissing when he knocked so nothing was seen by Lucas. Ashlee's character may or may not be Crystal, but no RELIABLE information is out regarding that. ALSO, anyone relying on Wikipedia for Days updates is looking in the wrong place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soaps spoiler site. CelticGreen (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant, you know you aren't even supposed to be here and you should know that lies and falsehoods in editing are part of what got you kicked off before. Soaps.com is a fan site like any other. They are no more reliable than any other fan site. Wikipedia is not the place for people to get updates. As it is an encyclopedia information is posted/updated AFTER the fact, not before. Far too often I've seen people edit Wikipedia and then say on message boards "on Wiki it says Dr. Rebert is coming back" when in reality they edited the page so they could spread false rumours. That's why I watch to make sure verified information is placed on pages, not junk from Soaps.com or Dayscafe.com as they are unreliable and not network affiliated. Now go back to SoapCentral and bother the people over there. You know I have an account there, don't make me use it. IrishLass (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

She debuts on 26 december.

What's your point and why are you here? There is no ep on the 25th in the US, that's Christmas. You know you are not supposed to be here and no reliable source has published information on Ashlee's debut date. When they do, it will be added by an editor in good standing, not a banned one. IrishLass (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit after the fact once someone has called you on it. IrishLass (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My post was meant to say that she debuted on the 26. If you check the Days of our Lives Cast Members History you will see that it originally said that she debuted on the 25. The whole reason that I wrote here was to tell you that it was the 26 not the 25. I was just not paying attention and accidently wrote the 25. I realised this and when I made the changes I did not notice that you had already made a post about this. I apoligise for the misundertsanding. But by the way please do not change people posts after they have signed their username. Thanks.

[edit] Chloe Lane

Chloe and Brady's divorce became final after John's death, not before it.

Grant, you have lost all rights to edit Wikipedia. Now go back to bugging people at Soap Central. Chloe said that they had problems for a long time and the divorced was finalized just before John's death and they didnt want to bother Marlena with it. Get out! You aren't supposed to even be here let alone making comments that aren't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CelticGreen (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed content not allowed on talk pages

It is not permissible to put copies of article pages on your talk page. Content removed as a double violation of Wikipedia policy. One, you are not to be editing here as a banned user, two, see above. IrishLass (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

You have been blocked from editing and even edits to your talk page are disruptive. Do not continue with this behavior. Your IP address has now been range blocked because of your actions. You can have opinions regarding articles, but you will need to find another place to express them. Your disruptive behavior has been noted by all. Discontinue, now. IrishLass (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are blocked. See WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK. This page is left unprotected as a courtesy to you in case you have legitimate grounds to contest your block. You are not permitted any other sorts of edits. And your continued block avoidance unfortunately makes it unlikely you will ever be unblocked, at least while your abuse continues. --Yamla (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Days of Our Lives Updates

Just thought that I would point out that Ava and Olivia White and will be leaving Days of Our Lives and Alina Foley will be taking over the role of Claire. I think that the twins exits should be listed on the Comings and Goings section since they have been on contract for a short time and they have been quite involved in the story. Thanks. Grant Chuggle (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How about you look up and see that the admin that blocked you has advised you that you need to stop editing - PERIOD!! That means you don't make comments about who MAY be coming or going ~FYI ~Soaps.com has twice previously reported Ava and Olivia were leaving so they don't know SQUAT!!~ You don't make comments about what your sorry, unreliable self deems reliable. It means you say NOTHING!! No one cares what you think because of your past behavior. Until there's a verifiable source that says they are leaving in favor of someone else, they remain unlisted. Do you understand? KellyAna (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No! Oh and ~FYI ~This info was not from Soaps.com, it was from the latest edition of TV Plus.Grant Chuggle (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think someone should suggest to the admins that this page be blocked to you too. You don't get the word "courtesy" do you? You need to stop Grant. Although, I do enjoy you proving that you have no self-control so you'll never be trusted to edit again. KellyAna (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santo DiMera

THe way the retcon section in Santo's article should be written:

"The original story of Santo came from Stefano. Stefano told of having six brothers and claimed that he is the Phoenix because he was the "seventh son of the seventh son." There was also a mention of having a sister in a past storyline. However in the current storyline, centering around the Brady/DiMera feud, Santo has claimed that Stefano is his only child."

This version is neutral to both sides of the argument and is simple and to the point. It is unknown at this point if Santo was lieing or if history had indeed been retconned and that's why the version should rather be this way. Thanks and enjoy your evening. Grant Chuggle (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

With every comment you make you dig a deeper whole for the wide range IP block on you to last longer and longer. You'll never be able to edit again and YOU'RE WRONG about Santo's retcon. You need to just go away and stop bothering other editors. You've been warned that if you continue, even this page will be blocked. You should be careful. KellyAna (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well KellyAna I find it very funny that you have out of nowhere popped up and started writing on my page and what is more strange is that Irishlass is not here to give me a peice of her mind. Or maybe she has. I was looking at your contribution KellyAna and they are suspiciously similar to Irishlass's. May I say SOCKPUPPET. If I am wrong then I am truly sorry but if I am right then you IrishLass are the biggest hypocrate. Oh and don't think that blocking this page will stop me voicing my opinion on you. Once again if I am wrong then I am very sorry. Grant Chuggle (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Try checking my contributes, you will see that I am not a sockpuppet or even new. I am a name changed, with Wikipedia approval, CelticGreen. If you bothered to research before accusing and assuming, you would know that. And IrishLass is never around on weekends, she's made that statement more than a time or two.KellyAna (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Grant Chuggle (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was. You should really read up on sockpuppetry as your accusation was not even valid. A sockpuppet is generally someone trying to be someone else, like you did with MaryPoppins. Read the policy before making accusations. And do some research. If you had looked at my contributes, you would have seen that my talk page has many comments signed by CelticGreen and you would have seen that I went to two pages to advise them of my new name. Wikipedia allows users in good standing to change their names. It wasn't about hiding, it was about wanting people to know I was a woman and not assume I was a man. KellyAna (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The retcon is fine the way it is. When are you going to stop being a pest and go away? IrishLass (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting the page

Grant has asked me to unprotect the page so he can post, with the condition that he not be abusive, and perhaps since his two major nemeses here have recently been exposed as one user with two accounts, I accepted. As per his request, any abuse and the lock goes back on. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I'm here to note that Grant Chuggle is not blocked "due to KellyAnna and Irishlass backing each up each other and bad mouthing me togethor". This user is blocked due to his long history of harassment, personal attacks, and sockpuppetry and block evasion. The block evasion has continued well into 2008 and show fairly conclusively that it would be inappropriate to unblock this user. --Yamla (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what Yamla said is true and that is why I am not asking for my block to be lifted, I am just asking for a date to be set when it will expire, even if that is months away. I completly understand your doubts about me, but the person that I am now, is not the same person that I was a few months ago and I just wanted to say I am sorry and make a truce, because at my "meetings", they say that is very important.

I would actually support an unblock request in, say, six months if the user has refrained from any editing of Wikipedia. Given the history of block evasion, I would not support shortening the block, but if the user can show no more personal attacks, harassment, or abusive sockpuppetry for block evasion for that period, he would perhaps earn back my trust. --Yamla (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good I will now say goodbye to Wikipedia and return in September, when hopefully I have gained your trust back. Thanks, so much I really appreciate it. Cheers. Grant Chuggle (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)