User talk:LrdChaos/2007

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I don't know why you had to delete my article. I just started it a few minutes ago, had to look up my references, and when I got back the article was gone. Cruel! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaElin (talkcontribs) 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the late reply, and I see that you've recreated the page with quotes, so this is not a big deal, but the reason that I deleted the page was that you initially created it with no quotes at all (leaving the bare people template in place. There are main reasons why I deleted the page, both stemming from the fact that it contained no quotes. The first is that this is Wikiquote, and a main namespace page with no quotes (that's not a navigation or disambiguation page) is effectively devoid of content here. The second is that Wikiquote often has what I call "hit and run" editors, who come, create a page that may or may not contain quotes, and then never return, leaving a messy or effectively empty page. In the future, the easiest way to make sure that a new page you create isn't going to be deleted is to have everything ready before you create the page (or at least, have one quote ready when you create the page). —LrdChaos (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template and the clean up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanketh (talkcontribs) 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you verify if the quotes on Breaking Up are still considered a stub? Is there anything else that would complete the article? Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanketh (talkcontribs) 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to remove the stub tag now. There seem to be a fair number of quotes, and the stub tag is usually used when there are only very few quotes to a page (or they're not representative of the whole). —LrdChaos (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Hungry?

What's your deal on the Mitch Hedberg page? First you rewrote it (much to everyone's disgust) and now you remove the link to the site listing everything you removed (looks it was removed and re-added already). Seriously, what's your deal? Besides that, what's to say that I'm the owner of the fan website? Man, you have issues — people just want to see Mitch's jokes. Timneu22 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it because the previous version was a copyright violation; it really doesn't matter how many people liked the old version and don't like the new one, because that's not the issue. Not once have I seen someone (yourself included) engage in an intelligent discussion about the copyright issues involved. As far as your link, I've addressed that issue in some detail at Talk:Mitch link. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== link ==

I've removed this again, and I'm going to continue to remove it so long as it violates several policies. For one, by copying what amounted to a copyright violation here, the site is then a copyright violation. From Wikipedia:Copyrights:

If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).

As Jeffq said above, the new site probably isn't likely to end up being sued for copyright infringement, but only as long as it keeps a low profile. Linking to the site from Wikiquote (and much higher-traffic Wikipedia) is not going to keep a low profile.

Secondly, and much less of an issue next to the copyright problems, WP:EL and WP:COI both discourage people involved with a site from adding a link to that site to Wikimedia projects. From WP:EL:

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines.

Since it seems that the entire point of the site is to provide all of the quotes that were formerly here (which are almost certainly a copyright violation), it should not be added as a link until that site has taken steps to stop infringing on the copyright. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

So why does the MitchHedbergFans website get to stay? It has similar material.

Wiki works because of people like you - power hungry or otherwise :-). Thanks for the collaboration. WIKISUPERFIXER 10:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would you please

enlighten me O' Lord of Chaos what is the problem with the page i started, let me see, _yesterday_, as a complete newcomer to wikiquote, that you have decided in your almighty wisdom that it should be deleted? can i even start please? Minusf 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I think it should be deleted at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion#Hungarians in world literature, which I take it you've since seen by your vote there. If you'd like me to go into more detail and explain it at great length, I could, but I'd prefer not to if I didn't have to. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Crash

  • (Just to be sure you know) I actually suggested that Snow Crash not be merged, but rather Neal Stephenson be broken up into multiple wikiquote entries for his respective novels (or at least those novels with a significant number of quotations already entered) and for the Snow Crash subsection to be merged with the named article due to the length of both the Stephenson and Snow Crash pages.
  • Merging in one direction or the other needs to happen. I am happy with merging the book entry into the author's entry so long as all the sourcing I did today on the Snow Crash page travels to Stephenson's page with the merge.  :)>
  • I noticed many author pages that are becoming rather long that could be (but mostly are not) broken into multiple separate novel pages (with a See Also section). Do you know if there are wikiquote guidelines making it preferable (as policy) to maintain author articles with their works as one entry? Thanks! tartaruga 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we prefer to keep books as sections under the author; having a separate page for each book too often courages editors to add material to "beef up" a short page for a book, and the resulting page may have copyright issues due to the extensive quoting. Putting all the books together means that it's more visually OK for a section to be short, because there's other content on the page. In the particular case of Stephenson, I think that it might be worthwhile to split off a separate page for the entire Baroque Cycle series, with sections for each of the books, though I think they should undergo some cleaning up before they do. —LrdChaos (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. So why don't we merge Snow Crash for now and then, after some time spent cleaning the rest of the Stephenson article, we split the entry into separate pages as you describe above (so long as no contrary consensus suggests otherwise). I am not sure how to merge an existing article into part of another article (unless one merely cuts and pastes), so I will leave the merge to you if you don't mind. Thanks. tartaruga 14:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on the VfD. I am new to Wikiquote, with experience on Wikipedia, so I am trying to contribute in a helpful way. Rkevins82 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very belated answer

Hi! You asked me for some information long ago, and I just got note! Follow that back for an answer. Have a great day. // FrankB 09:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fabartus & interwiki link templates

It doesn't look like this was cross-posted to your talk page, so you may have missed it. User:Fabartus (the creator of the 2-3 dozen interwiki templates we VFD'd a few months back) has written something on their talk page about it, and has also been starting to recreate some of the templates. I'm still not sure what the point of them is, and I'm tempted to speedy delete them as recreations of previously-deleted content, but I'd like to get a second opinion in case I'm just being dense. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm way too overcommitted to dig into this mess again right now. But just reading over Fabartus's recent reponse to your question and skimming through a few links, it sounds like Frank still hasn't learned to be aware of what programming stuff looks like to non-programmers. See his POV in w:Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 15#Template:Interwikitmp-grp, specifically where he says, "My programming days were in assembler and C, so forgive me if I see the characterization of Complcated [sic] code as a bit of hyperbole". He still seem not to comprehend that even basic template use is a bit of a trial for Wikimedia's primary audience, folks for whom bullets, colon indents, bracket links, and apostrophe-based highlighting are a lot of work.
Another example of how bad he is at communicating his ideas is how he "demonstrates" one of his templates in that talk page response, in the section beginning with "Aside: Demo of interwikitmp-grp in tagging mode...". He slaps the template into the text and assumes that the reader will realize what the associated text is referring to, even though the effect of the template is displayed well below the "example" section. (The right way to show an example of something so non-trivial, as many of us have done here in explaining some of our more complex formatting, is to show the wiki code first, then show the effect, and make damn sure the effect is properly positioned to make sense to the reader.) Frank just doesn't care to ensure readers are following what he says. His work demands they rise to his level of expertise. As another experienced wiki editor, I find this an unforgiveable sin against our main audience. (And the fact that these templates are used inside other templates is no excuse. In fact, such complexity puts an even greater responsibility on the maintainers to clarify it, as even template experts can easily make mistakes.)
Finally, he seems just as sloppy and rushed as ever, as shown by his incorrect claim to have cross-posted his response to me. This is exactly what we saw from him the last time. These failures are a little too "outside the box" to trust him with this work. He strikes me as someone with a lot of ideas but not enough time to implement any of them well.
I'd prefer not to dismiss his revised work without a more in-depth look, but if I see any of his templates appear in any talk pages or articles without a compelling need, without a properly formatted usage explanation for ordinary mortals, or incorrectly used (as I've caught him doing repeatedly with one of his own templates), I'll SD them myself on your cited basis. I'll also support anyone else SD'ing them until Frank demonstrates that he's addressing these concerns. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Heelers

I noticed that you're the person who tagged the Blue Heelers Wikiquote article for a clean-up. As the person who created it and am attempting to manage something that I think I'm in over my head with, I'd appreciate if you could help me to get it cleaned up. Given the large number of episodes which I failed to take into consideration before setting the page up, I'm no longer sure how to order the quotes. I'd appreciate it if you could help me to get this page sorted so that it conforms to the standard expected. Although I'm not a registered user, I have been trying to keep the page going for a while and am struggling now. I'd be grateful for any help you could offer. -- 09:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by ordering them. Episodes should be grouped by season and ordered logically; for quotes within each episode, it's preferred that they're ordered chronologically by when they were said, but it's not the most important thing and it usually doesn't warrant a cleanup tag on its own. (If this wasn't the sort of answer you were looking for, let me know). —LrdChaos (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply], I've posted a note at Talk:Blue Heelers#Cleanup to explain the main problems.
LrdChaos, I'd have to disagree with you on chronological order not being important. Right now, that's the closest thing we have to providing a specific source within a television episode, the audiovisual equivalent of a novella. Without any order, it's much more difficult to for readers to verify the quotes. I agree that lack of chrono order doesn't warrant a cleanup tag, but that's only because we don't have any true mechanism to make clear what order the quotes are in. (With books, anyone can order quotes if the chapters or pages are given, moving quotes lacking those to the bottom as being unspecifically sourced.) Chrono order, in my humble opinion, is the least we can insist on, lest we have to resort to timecodes (for which we have no good source-line formatting for dialogues, and which would introduce confusion between commercial-free DVD and variably commercial-laden, edited-for-time/content, videotaped aired versions). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that chrono-sorting is important for ease of sourcing, but I think it's less important (not unimportant, just less important) as long as they're grouped by episode (so that there's at least some idea of where to look). Since there's no way to tell at a glance which shows have the quotes chrono-sorted and which do not, it's not particularly useful for verification, especially when coupled with the fact that it's at best a relative sourcing (i.e., quote A comes before quote B in the show, but nothing tells you how far into the show it is). I tend to view it along the same lines as sourcing quotes from books: book chapters are roughly the same as episodes, and page numbers the same as timecodes, and as long as one is able to narrow it down to something like a chapter or episode, more specificity is nice but might actually complicate things (books have different editions, TV shows with edits/commercials). —LrdChaos (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not too far apart on this. I agree that collecting by episode is the most important thing for sourcing. My concern is that even 30 minutes of dialogue is typically much more material than one would find in a book chapter (outside of Joyce's Ulysses or the penultimate chapter of any Dean Koontz novel, perhaps). An hour episode is much closer to book-sized that chapter-sized. It's true that we can't tell if quotes are chrono-sorted, but insisting upon having them this way tends to encourage folks to do this when they review the episodes. The system could use some improvement, but I don't see a clear path to this, nor do I have the wherewithal to attack it, with so much else of import going on here. Oh, well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the situation now. It's a little difficult to provide time codes for quotes as less than half the series has been released on DVD and video time codes can be particularly messy given the commericials. A lot of the quotes aren't sorted chronologically, although some may be, so once I can find the time, I'll try to get them into chronological order as best as possible.-- 22:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for that! I couldn't find an anon template anywhere, because your templates aren't in cats. Thanks, I'll use {{anon}} now. Cbrown1023 talk 02:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick DeCamp Lives

Hello. Recently I Googled upon the Delete the Nick DeCamp quotes debate at:

which you and your colleagues presided over last November. Even though the matter seems to be settled, I thought I could offer some insights regarding the referenced author, since I am, in fact, he. My name is Nicholas DeCamp, but only my wife calls me Nicholas and only when she is angry, which is often. I did write for The Centre for the Easily Amused, which was administered by Cathie Walker. Ms. Walker now runs The former site was financed by, until they decided to focus on online games and do away with boring written content. I was actually paid to write, which seems silly now in the age of when any semi-literate pubescent with two brain cells to rub together has an online platform to rant from. Nonetheless, it was a rewarding experience, and I can assure you all the aphorisms were indeed created by me. Amazingly, the page I originally created for my work is still up at Geocities: I have no idea how to edit it or get it down, so there it stays until the year 3056.

Also, I was in fact heavily influenced by Jack Handey of Saturday Night Live fame as well as Dave Barry.

My email is, in case you need to see some ID or do a blood test. 21:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting of the Snark

I am of course brand new on Wikiquote (though experienced on Wikipedia) so would be grateful for an explanation of the policy here. Lewis Carroll has separate pages for the two Alice books; why should he not also have one for the Hunting of the Snark? I was planning to include quite a few more quotations from that book, enough to justify a separate article.--Poetlister 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we prefer to keep books on a page for the author, to the extend feasible. Mostly, this is to "encourage" people not to add too much to each book, which might run into copyright problems. It's not really an official policy, per se, though perhaps it should be. In the particular case of Carroll/Snark, I happened to be going through the "New pages" list and saw that (I didn't realize you'd split it off until after I'd remerged). I figured that since that page only had two quotes, and Carroll's page only had four, there wasn't any good reason to have Snark as a separate page. In the case of Carroll, copyright isn't really a factor (as the work is in the public domain), but we still prefer to keep books (especially shorter ones) with the author to avoid overquoting. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New VfD system observations

From User talk:Jeffq#Template:vb when closing VFDs:

On that note, though, as someone other than me who's closed and archived a VFD with the new system, do you have any thoughts about it (how it's better/worse or could be better)? —LrdChaos (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of differences in how we view the deletion process, as well as some complications that need some investigation. I'm thinking we need to extend the evaluation period so we can not only work out some bugs, but also do a first pass at proper documentation of both the general audience experience of VfD and the sysop instructions on how to complete it. (I'm especially concerned that our deletion closures and archives are running behind, a sign that we are reaching beyond the community's comfort zone.) I'm finding myself too exhausted to handle so many changes and controversial issues at the same time. I think that I will have to make my primary focus to extend the deletion system change discussion and start fleshing out some of these consequences and instructions.
One of those changes I'd like folks to look at is my test (today) of not changing the "vote closes" line. Ever since we adopted the WP-like closure banner, it's been gnawing at me that we have duplicate statements on closure. Also, I've always been a bit uncomfortable about the way we change the unsigned closure notice to a "closed", deleting the record of the original announced closure. What I did with Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Image:Hawking.jpg and 2 others announces the result in the banner, without explanation (like WP), and leaves the closure time announcement intact. (I figure we could add explanations, when necessary or advisable, outside the {{vt|STATE}} template.) Unless someone with more energy beats me to it, I think I'll propose this in the VfD discussions, along with my other observations. (If we decide against it, I can always fix the closures I've made.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a break

Does one page have to be deleted so quickly by one person because it doesn't suit their taste?

Your actions seem to say so.

I would like to think that if the page were not visited in some time then it could be deleted, or it contained something rude or copyrighted then such a swift deletion would make sense.

I will leave you to your work, you obviously do a lot, but just to ask you to maybe give new things slightly more chance than you seemed to do in my case.

I will not rewrite the page but would like to think it could be reinstated so that it can be polished up and perhaps get the chance of some visitors before its doom was pronounced.

Thanks for all the good work you editors do (otherwise).

Wittypedia 01:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LrdChaos, is a very good sysop and would only delete pages if it was warranted. He knows what is right, and I support him and his actions. He probably had a good reason for deleting the pages, as described in his deletion summary. If you disagree with the deletion and his actions, please take it to WQ:AN. Cbrown1023 talk 02:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say otherwise yet;

"Unremarkable subject. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead."

if this is the reason for deletion, as stated, then my comment still stands and the worst I should have recived was the request to get the page up to standard or face deletion due to it not meeting the criteria. That would have seemed fair, been understandable and so on as I already said. This is not an attack and so I am surprised at the "support" as support would not seem relavent to something which was not weakened.

Thanks again for the good work of the editors, I'm sorry my work was not to standard. Wittypedia 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stand by the reason of "unremarkable subject". I did a cursory search and was unable to find any evidence that the site is notable. There are 250 Google hits for it, with Google suggesting I meant "Wikipedia". The page, as you created it, contained no claim of notability whatsoever, which, combined with the lack of Google presence and the relation of your username to the subject (a strong sign of a so-called "vanity" page), the page met the criteria for speedy deletion as an unremarkable subject. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possibility of merger "checkcopyright" and "copyvio"

Hi, I proposed a merger of two categories, Category:Pages which need their copyright status checked and Category:Possible copyright violations, so sebsequently Template:Checkcopyright and Template:Copyvio and noticed you might be intereted. I would invite you to the discussion. Thank you for your attention, --Aphaia 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little help...

I've asked Jeffq for some input to a discussion I am having with a user about copyright issues at User talk:Zarbon, regarding his work on The Sopranos. I thought I might also invite your input, as this user just doesn't seem to get it. I realize that it is just this type of thing that may be driving you to take a break, but I wanted to see if you had any thoughts on this. Thanks in advance. ~ UDScott 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Burned out on Wikiquote? God, I come here to relax... Dev920 01:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe LrdChaos is recharging in order to maintain his membership in the (unofficial) Category:People who remain Wikiquotians despite frequently getting really annoyed by the whole thing. I suspect most of us sysops feel the same way quite often. Watch out, or we may rope you into being one eventually! ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which case:
May the road rise up to meet you
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face;
the rains fall soft upon your fields and until we meet again,
may God hold you in the palm of His hand.
Charge up soon. :) Dev920 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing Up

Hi. I'm User:Ben 10 on Wikipedia, but I can't figure out how to set up a logon ID on wikiquote. I've tried to do it the same way I did on Wikipedia, but none of the right links are there. Can you help me out? Ben 10 11:27, 12 March 2007

Hi, you may not have noticed the message at the top of LrdChaos' page, but you won't be getting an answer any time soon. I've placed a message on your talk page that has a link that will lead you to where you can create an id. ~ UDScott 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm short on time right now, but I'll check it out ASAP. Ben 10 10:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I hope your time off was restful. I for one am glad to have you back, even if you plan to lessen your involvement here - it's always good to have the help of someone that is as enthusiastic about improving things. Cheers. ~ UDScott 14:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional last words

Greetings! I have been busily dividing the ridiculously oversized Fictional last words entry from a uselessly disorganized 270kb monstrosity to a series of still-enormous but at least manageable pieces - Fictional last words in literature, Fictional last words in television, Fictional last words in webcomics, etc. The reason I broke out Star Wars, Batman, and James Bond media for separate "last words" entries is that each is itself a sizeable chunk, and each reports last words in varying media - in movies, books, comics, video games, etc. Please DO NOT simply merge these back into Fictional last words - if you are intent on merging them somewhere, please divide the materials therein between the appropriate types of media for which "Fictional last words" entries have been established. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I missed that (though I didn't really bother to look, beyond checking whether the edit summary for "Last words in Star Wars media" mentioned that it was split). I've removed the merge tag for the time being, at least until I catch up and can figure out whether there's somewhere better for it to live. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I think if we're going to have any kind of "last words" theme, it should be fine as a separate article, so long as there's one central repository of all of these kinds of article. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to change this quote to unsourced, as it gives the name of a source?[1] Is it worth keeping the article anyway in its present form? Tyrenius 03:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes move quotes like that to "Unsourced" sections because they don't provide sufficient information for finding the quote (year, publisher, edition, page/chapter, etc.). It's something I've done in some other places, too, but since there's not really any clear, official guideline on it, it's something that varies from editor to editor (and sometimes from day to day with the same editor, depending on mood, at least in my case). As for whether to keep the article or not, I don't have any strong feelings about it; I generally don't like articles that don't have any sourced quotes, but I also don't see much gain in nominating them for deletion unless there are other reasons to do so. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Stibrany quote

Hi. I finally ran across the discussion page ( describing why my first posting to WikiQuote, in November 2006, unexpectedly disappeared. You and the other 4 voters made some good points, mainly regarding notability and citations from Usenet articles. I would be happy to provide further information that would address these (some of which I left out originally, in the spirit of making the article concise), which I think might change your judgment on this one. Note: I thought I was complying with the draft policy at the time. Unfortunately, I didn't know that the deletion discussion was going on at the time, or I would have done this then. Is there a way to re-open this debate? And if so, does the original posting still exist in some deletion archive? (I put quite a bit of work into crafting it, but didn't retain a copy, assuming that I could always find my original posting in the edit history for the posting; 5 months later, I'd have a hard time reproducing it.) K.a.carroll 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as reopening a discussion, we currently don't have anything similar to Wikipedia's Deletion review process (though we have, informally, discussed the potential need for such a thing). If you can provide enough source information and connection to the subject that you think satisfies the concerns raised in the Votes for deletion (VFD) discussion, then the best course of action is probably to re-create the page, providing the new information and perhaps an explanation on its Talk page about what is different. This will help to avoid the new page being speedy-deleted, but I suspect that the new page will also find itself nominated for deletion, for the notability issue, regardless of how well you might be able to source the Usenet quote.
The original content isn't generally available (that being the point of deleting a page, really), but I can provide you with the last version of the page before its VFD nomination. I can either e-mail it to you (via Special:Emailuser, if you have that enabled in your preferences, or by creating a user-space subpage with it. Let me know which you prefer. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tags

Feel free to kick me (gently!) if I get them wrong - I try to learn, regards --Herby talk thyme 07:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello LrdChaos. I am contacting as many administrators as I can. The banned wiki-star is going around creating new user names under different ip addresses. He is a major vandalizer and sockpuppeteer on wikipedia and wikiquote. He has just recently been banned for hounding me on my talk page. He has created another user account under the name H*Bad and continued to attack me and avoid his ban. I really am sick and tired of these sockpuppet vandalizers. I need help from administrators to stop him. He keeps following my activity around and responding to every single thing. He just came to respond to all the places I had posted prior. He has also created more than one user name and is doing so by creating more and more user names right now. If for any reason he posts here, it's because all he does is follow my activity and try to vandalize any pages I put effort into. Please help. - Zarbon 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He just created another username called H*Bad12345 and is replying to his own responses with his sockpuppet. - Zarbon 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wolf3d update

hello LrdChaos. I updated the wolf3d page heavily in order to prevent it from deletion. check it out. you can change your vote if you'd like. - Zarbon 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]