User talk:Esasus

Thanks for cleaning up several of the mistakes I made when adding NFL coaching trees. J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating the Ralph Sall article. Happy editing, Kingturtle (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering an article on that Banana Splits theme and ya beat me to it.  :) I happen to know someone who did voice work on that show and it was one of my favorite ways to waste a Saturday morning back when I was about eight. Personally, I woudn't mind a moose head with flashing light bulbs stuck in its ears hanging on my wall.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It always helps to de-personalize disputes like that. Protonk (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it is nice to get 55 hours of relief from the "Guy". He has been stalking me for a couple of weeks now. I don't even want to give my opinion in a discussion where he is involved, and I am certain that there many non-confrontational editors who avoid his tactics of intimidation, stalking and sarcastic bullying, and therefore do not involve themselves in discussions. Why has he not been banned for life? Esasus (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, blocking users indefinitely is a tough decision, if they have made some productive contributions. We normally try to do everything possible to avoid long term blocks like that. I have no history with this editor, so I can't tell you what he has done in the past (though his block log is quite long). If you feel that some community input about this user would help, you might be interested in starting a user request for comment. That will bring in some uninvolved editors and attempt to give dreamguy some feedback. I should note that there are prereq's for starting a user RfC, so it can't just be opened out of the blue. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esasus, IMO your handlings with issues and jumping to conclusions is as much of a problem as he/she is. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true. One editor is aggressive and obsessively argumentative. I only responded with him to defend myself against baseless personal attacks. DG is blocked for his actions, and I am getting personal e-mails in my support. So that says all that their needs to be said on that subject. But please tell me - what is your personal COI with the article? Esasus (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, what a Drama Queen that guy DreamGuy is (I'm sorry - must keep proper tone of politeness - civility - so I take that back). I noticed a bit of "tension" in an AfD I piped up in, and followed the various complaint process transcripts (because I had a lot of spare time this PM). I feel for you. Some people get way too wrapped up. Proxy User (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not kick users when they cannot respond. It doesn't really serve any purpose to talk shit about someone while they are blocked. Incivility is incivility regardless of whether or not it is cloaked behind wikilinks to "child" and "Rush Limbaugh". Please stop. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk - who are you sending the above message to? If it is to me, then I am missing it. Please give specifics. Thanks. Esasus (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's not to you. I should have specified, normally indentation does that job for me. I was speaking to Proxy User. Protonk (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll be happy to delete my message here and put it where it belongs. Point of fact: Self Righteous Assholes are the main reason people leave Wikipedia. Since this is Esasus' user page, I'm sure he knows how to edit it. Proxy User (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Point of fact: Self Righteous Assholes are the main reason people leave Wikipedia."^{[citation needed]} There are many reasons people leave. And declaring that you think so and so is an asshole is no better, really. The whole point of this is that someone has to be the bigger person. If DG refused to do that, it becomes your job. I'm capable of speaking plainly and I understand you don't like this user. You have the option of avoiding him, of coming to terms with him or of interacting civilly with him. You do not have the option of trashing him directly or indirectly on this page or any other. Please stop. Protonk (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Touch a raw nerve? My user page is here. Proxy User (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As this is my talk page, I would appreciate it if you would continue your personal conversation on your own pages. I am concerned that my talk page is going to become a forum for editors who want to vent against DreamGuy, and that is not what I want my talk page to be (and quite frankly I do not want to deal with DG's revenge. He has already been wiki stalking my edits). I disagree with Proxy User's use of language, but I do agree with his point that confrontational and argumentative editors make the wiki- experience to be very unpleasant. I have no doubt in my mind that DG creates more bad will than any of his "valuable" edits might off-set. I am betting that most editors have learned to avoid discussions in which he is involved just to avoid the confrontation. This skews every discussion that he is involved towards his position. I've said it before, why this guy has not been banned for life is beyond me. But it is not my decision on who is banned or not. Like every other editor, my choice is, Should I Stay or Should I Go? My choice is to spend my recreational hours doing something I enjoy, and I do not enjoy dealing with angry, argumentative, obsessive editors. I would open a report on him, but it would appear that such a strategy is a waste of time as he has already be reported dozens of times, and has been blocked on numerous occasions. Maybe Proxy User will compile evidence for the next complaint. I'm done. I hope you all find what you are looking for. Esasus (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions toward me lately have been a huge violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. It's nothing but outright harassment. Making unproven accusations against me, then providing a long link to other people who have made false accusations doesn't prove any of those accusations correct. In fact, most of them have outright been proven wrong. For example, you say I am a known sockpuppet user, and provide a link to a page that explicitly says: "Checkuser has disproven any link between Dreamguy and these accounts, and likely would have taken appropriate action against the perpetrator, if there was one. No further action required here. Kevin" proving your accusation to be completely wrong. Many of the people who have made such accusations against me have ended up being permanently banned at some point later. The RFCs and RFArs filed against me are a laundry list of now-banned editors. Please do desist from this harassment immediately. DreamGuy (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully decline your invitation to join your hallucination. Esasus (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I believe you have already been warned that falsely labeling edits you disagree with as "vandalism" (as in this edit], made since I gave you the warning above) is also a form of personal attack. Just on the off chance that you've not been explicitly warned about this before, please read the actual vandalism policy and specifically the section on what is not vandalism. DreamGuy (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with everything you say above. First off, it is you who has been harassing me. Your false claim to the opposite holds no weight. I would hope that after you have been repeatedly blocked from Wikipedia that you might finally get the message and change your uncivil and disruptive behaviour. You might also want to consider your reasons why you feel that you must defend your position on each article to the death. Once a consensus has been reach you should accept it and move on. There are an unlimited number of battles for you to argue for/against. To continue an edit war on an article after the matter has been decided by a discussion is, in my opinion, a form of vandalism and must stop. Esasus (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently placed two false warnings about so-called vandalism on my talk page. This despite having the vandalism policy pointed out to you and warnings that you must stop your harassment above. You have also been warned by multiple other editors, both on your talk page and elsewhere, that such behavior is not allowed. Per the bold text on the top of my talk page, you are not allowed to post there anymore, as it's clear you have no intention to use it for a Wikipedia-compliant purpose. DreamGuy (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, your factless bluster is inaccurate and self-serving. I gave you warnings about your vandalism pursuant to wikipedia policy, which is a Wikipedia-compliant purpose. You have clearly received the warnings to stop your vandalism. Should you continue to vandalize the articles you will be reported. Esasus (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the two of you stay away from each other. No good can ever come of fighting like this. There are enough other people to check for any problems. DGG (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on my talk page concerning remarks in the Andrew Pace discussion. I have written a response on my talk page. Very probably you would see my response anyway, but in case not I am mentioning it here. (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kingfisher Sky, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kingfisher Sky, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingfisher Sky. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SummerPhD (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted one of your edits. By my count, Clark served as CUA's head coach for nine seasons: 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, and 2005. See sources referenced here. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. Strikehold (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Thanks for maintaining this article, and keep up the great work! Esasus (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the merge of Ohio Wesleyan Sweetly and Strong with the main OWU article. The OWU article is a FA and the song material has no refs and is almost certainly a copyvio (2 stanzas is beyond fair use - see WP:NFCC). I restored the prod at the song article, I am OK wit including a sentence or perhaps two on the song in the main OWU article, but it needs to be cited and incorporated into the exiting material (not its own section). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reverted your edit to insert the sub-section "Stourfield Junior School" to the Education section in Dorset (which is a FA). I also restored the prod and removed the redirection on the school article. I think the school article should be deleted for lack of notability, but if it isn't, perhaps it would be a better idea to add the information to the education section in Bournemouth instead, without the header. BarretBonden (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once a prod has been removed it should not be restored. If you feel that a deletion is preferred to a merge, please bring it to AfD. Esasus (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should have taken time to read the prod template properly. I have taken it to AfD. BarretBonden (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent initiative, lead by a lawyer, who is also a wikipedia contributor, to remove almost all the articles about lawyers who worked on behalf of Guantanamo captives. He or she nominated ten articles one day, and seemed ready to start another round of nominations until almost all of them had been nominated.

He agreed to pause, in his nominations, after I acknowledged a kind of tunnel vision, and promised to go through Category:Guantanamo Bay attorneys and userify all the articles in that category that I was the sole author of, which I did not think would survive an {{afd}}. I moved about two dozen articles to my user space, promising to either work to improve them, or to cannibalize their references elsewhere.

I expect, in a month or so, he or she will recommence nominating the remaining articles for deletion.

One of his main arguments, one he advances with another lawyer who would like to see all the articles about these lawyers removed, is that lawyers represent clients, and that there is nothing notable about a lawyer if all their article reports is that they represented a client -- even if that client is a Guantanamo captive. I think there is a very serious hidden fallacy in this argument.

Frankly, I think some of the articles that ended up being deleted in his first round of nominations were much stronger than the Jill M. Friedman article -- Joshua L. Dratel for instance. You can see a full listing of the recent {{afd}}s here. If the Jill Friedman article is nominated for deletion will you want a heads-up? One way to do that would be to put Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp on your watchlist.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-instated the Prod on the page. According to WP:Notability (films), a film must have been widely distributed AND have at least two reviews from notable sources. A quick search of google and glance at Rotten Tomatoes indicates that no sufficiently notable outlets reviewed the film. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once has prod has been removed it should not be re-instated. The proper process is to bring this article to an AfD. Esasus (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When deprodding an article you may consider adding {{Oldprodfull}} to the talk page of the article.--Rockfang (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esasus!

I noticed that you reverted some of my edits on this article. I thought I'd let you know that the reason I have been editing this particular article is because the version that I cut down had numerous blogs and the like (such as Wordpress, blogspot) as sources, which aren't considered primary by Wiki, especially for living persons. The only primary sources that are available for this individual are on Amazon for her books, which actually were published by a small "vanity" press. I have attempted to verify her modeling career with the primary sources such as PhotoCredit and the various registered modeling agencies but cannot confirm that data either. Essentially, this person is not particularly notable and is currently in a relationship with a minor German aristocrat. I don't think her personal life is notable, although she seems to have a fan.

When I just finished editing it now, I quoted the exact lines from Wiki rgarding sources for living persons. Hopefully, this helps her fan understand why I did what I did. S/he seems determined to accuse me of dreadful acts, but when someone is a dedicated fan, I suppose they feel strongly about certain persons.

Five teenagers? As you can see from my profile, I'm married to a teacher; we have teenagers, too, they just don't live with us :-) PR (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much anyone can comment, and one of the admins will close the discussion. Explaining why you believe it should be restored or not is key. Just look over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review and WP:DEL first. Oh, if you have a conflict of interest (like being the person in question or something similar) than you should either say out or announce the conflict. Hope that helps! Hobit (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No conflict of interest here. For me it has become a matter of principle. I have become annoyed at how one user and his sock puppets, who has no respect for Wikipedia:Etiquette or policy, seems to be able to bully his way through an AfD process via harassment, intimidation, and WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Esasus (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me of the DRV. Have you notified folks on both sides of the argument? Recall that while I did not actually vote one way or the other in the discussion, you might want to avoid any allegations of canvassing, by only notifying one side of the discussion to the DRV, as DreamGuy appears to have done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Yes, I have notified all of the involved editors of the review, with the exception of DreamGuy who is clearly aware of the review (and is currently serving day two of a seven day editing block). Esasus (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, as he is wont to do, has likely banned you from his talk page. I can see why you would avoid poking the 'critter in the cage'. Thanks for responding. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It seems that you overlooked Collectonian when making your notifications. To maximize her time available to comment, I copied one of your notifications to her talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your kind assistance Esasus (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would point out that due to the fairly long and colorful history of DG, I am suggesting that maybe leaving him be for now might be in everyone's best interest. He's been blocked for a week, so others are going to see your discussion with him as poking at a critter through the bars of the cage; it doesn't do anything to help DG learn the error of his ways. That he's willing to accept 1RR/day might be that greatly-awaited step in his evolution as an editor. We have to accept that we cannot change who he is as a person, especially since he doesn't see the real ned for change. All we can really do is to reinforce the good habits, while protecting the wiki (and the rest of the editors) from the bad ones. I think he is well aware that he has built up a huge amount of ill-will within the community, and his positive work in articles doesn't outweigh that in and of itself.

While I tend to be a realist, I don't believe in disposable people. If DG is willing to accept the step of 1RR (except in cases of obvious vandalism), then we should give him the chance to do that. Whether or not we can point to his other failed attempts to practice what he preaches, I think we need to give him the chance to do so. If he fails, I think he knows he will be blocked, likely indefinitely. I don't like the guy - at all - but I think he deserves the chance to redeem himself. Don't you? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, posting a demand for an apology isn't really conducive to a positive response, is it? I mean, what are you expecting, a duel at dawn? Maybe you need to let it go. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging EHAA, which prodded me to improve the encylopedia by providing a key reference! Tb (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference significantly improves the article Esasus (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for personal attcks such as this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KC, you did happen to see the comment by DG that preceded it, right? I am not offering it as a defense for Esasus' comment, but it seemed tame in proportion. DG is currently sitting out a week-long block, and is under civility parole. There was nothing in the preceding comment that would suggest that the parole is being followed. Hell, any comment off DG's page is pretty much an ` of that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I did. DG is on his own page, making a valid accusation of wrongdoing. Esasus said snide things to DG on his page - no defense, no protestations of innocence, no difs to prove DG was in error - no, just a nasty insinuation. I have taken no action against Esasus; but be clear, Esasus is very much in the wrong here and DG is not. Canvassing is a very serious offense, and we do not punish whistle blowers here on Wikipedia nor do we give a free pass for insults to the accused. I'm missing where you think DS's parole enters into this situation at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, please explain your comment " Hell, any comment off DG's page is pretty much an ` of that." What precisely do you mean by that statement? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really expect me to waste my time adding Diffs to User:DreamGuy's talk page showing that all those involved in the AfD discussion were notified? Get real. I have moved on. If you want to check yourself, go ahead. All were notified. Esasus (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I already stated that I was checking. No one asked you to paste difs.
2. My point was that had you posted on DG's page to civilly defend yourself against charges made, either by posting difs or any other measure, that would have been acceptable. Your nasty personal attack was not.
3. You have now added bitchily telling me to "get real" to your extreme rudeness. I am unimpressed with your lack of courtesy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, I think (or, am rather hoping) that Esasus' request to 'get real' was to suggest that you pay more than a little heed to the forest, and not just the trees. The only person who was not contacted about the discussion was DG, who was blocked and couldn't participate anyway. Additionally, DG pitches a fit when those who he has "banned" from his talk page post there. Even the most basic of notifications end up removed with a - and I'll use your term "bitchily"- crafted response.

Now, I am not defending Esasus' poking DG while he was blocked; it was poor form, and I said so. However, DG's accusations of canvassing were full of crap, as you were able to easily verify through a quick comparison of Esasus' contributions to the folk involved in the discussion; DG, having been here for a while could have done the same thing, instead of shooting his mouth off. As he has a pronounced habit of doing precisely that, I think you might have investigated a bit more before counseling E on his behavior; I had already done that above, and I had done the comparison. I would have told DG myself, but alas and alack, I am "banned" from his talk page as well.

I am just saying that a little more illumination of the terrain would have prevented the misstep on you part. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Esasus' baiting was inappropriate regardless of how appropriate or accurate DG's (or anyone else's) behavior might have been. My comments about Esasus' attacks have nothing, nothing to do with DG's actions, nor should they. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now hold on, I think that Esasus was pissed at the utterly bogus accusation on DG's page, but I think that calling it baiting is a bit untoward and incorrect; by such, you are suggesting he did it to get a rise out of DG. If anything, I think Esasus was being dismissive. That isn't good either, but frankly, you've been dismissive at times as well. We all have. It isn't the most polite thing, but it isn't as freakishly wrong as fucking the neighborhood cat, either. Are you looking for Esasus to apologize for his ill-advised comments, or are you just telling him to knock it off? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus? Now, that's really nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua - Please take note that on my talk page you made an accusation against me stating that my reply comment in response to User:DreamGuy's unnecessary, false and uncivil personal attack against me, was uncivil. In provoked response to his false accusation of vote stacking, all that I wrote was "I respectfully decline your invitation to join your hallucination." You have apparently come to my talk page to support User:DreamGuy's allegation against me without first even checking to see if User:DreamGuy's allegation was true. By now you should have had the opportunity to check User:DreamGuy's claim that I was attempting to "stack the vote" and will have found it to be false. I feel that it is uncivil for someone to label my talk page reply as "bitchily" [sic]. Esasus (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply was rude and accused DG of hallucinating, which is beyond snarky as I am sure you are aware. This has nothing to do with DG's allegations, and I have not supported or implied I support his allegations in any way. Telling me to "get real" is bitchy. I call 'em as I see 'em, and you have been quite rude to me. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term was a turn of a phrase, KC; I don't think the actual intent was to state that DG was actually hallucinating. He was saying that DG was wrong, which - as it turned out - he was. He could have phrased it better, sure. But consider that Esasus was "calling 'em as he saw them" as well. The best defense against rudeness - as we saw from the whole Husond affair at AN/I - is accuracy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your coming to my page to tell me to be civil WAS in support of DreamGuy's false claims and uncivil behaviour. I am not aware that "snarky" is a violation of WP:CIVIL, but in any event my reply to DreamGuy was a constrained and justifiable response to DreamGuy's false accusation. The term "get real" is a "figure of speech", and does not in anyway compare to you calling me "bitchy", which IS a violation of WP:CIVIL. Esasus (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, being snarky is a violation of civility, Esasus. If it does not either point out something blindingly obvious or help to promote harmonious interactions with other editors, it is not helpful. If it makes another contributor feel stepped on - even a little bit - it is uncivil. Your commentary was understandable, but it isn't allowed. KC was trying to tell you that your poke was not civil. KC's characterization of your comments as "bitchy" fall into this same category. The best ting to do is to chalk it up to experience, learn from it, and move on. Deal? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne - I appreciate your reasoned involvement is this issue. I am ready to move on, but I point out that I did not bring this issue to my talk page. I will defend myself against DreamGuy's false allegations, and against KillerChihuahua's uncivil comments. The fact is that at 00:05, 6 April 2009 I left a message to DreamGuy stating that I had notified all of the editors involved in the AfD. This was true then, and it is true now. For DreamGuy to say otherwise (as he did) is false. Esasus (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) But is was true at the time that DG made the accusation. You hadn't contacted the opposing side with the same diligence you had contacted yours - there is an almost 8 hour gap from the last person you contacted about the matter to when you continued to contact the opposing side (after I advised you). The diffs suggest that you self-corrected after I pointed out the issue, and that is a good thing. Notifying DG after you made an effort to invalidate DG's accusation doesn't actually invalidate the accusation. That said, let's move on. KC seems disinclined to take action, and DG is trying to take positive steps, so let's just move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have warned you about being civil; I now warn you about harassing DreamGuy. The evidence shows you veyr clearly canvassed, and seven hours later, DreamGuy posted a note about it on his talk page, then Arcayne notified you about WP:CANVASS, and you rapidly moved to notify the opposing view. You corrected your CANVASSing, which is to your credit. You did, however, canvass and the seven hour gap and attempt to recruit "keeps" from earlier Afds makes it quite clear what your intent was. I notice you have not notified any "deletes" from previous Afds, even after the warning. So you're still not balanced. I am tolerant, perhaps to a fault, but your umbrage is falling on deaf ears. I suggest you drop this before you dig yourself a deeper hole. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there it is, then. I hope you have learned that you need to notify everyone in a notification campaign - it is the difference between notification and canvassing. You self-corrected, which is a good step. Not ever doing it again will be a even better one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFTER I had notified all of the editors involved in the AfD, DreamGuy clearly lied when he wrote "No, you didn't. I'm not surprised you would lie about it, considering you have consistently made highly deceptive statements on that AFD and others. The fact that I DID notify all of those involved in a timely manner is proof positive that I had no intention of attempting to stack the vote. Esasus (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you[2] You notified them after DG posted his canvass note here, and after Arcayne warned you about violating canvass. That you put the cookie back after mother caught you does not make you innocent of intent. Now, go away and stop harassing DG on his talk page for catching you trying to do an end-run.. I post here in case you missed it when I originally responded to you on DG's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have already you that DreamGuy lied when he wrote on his talk page that I had not notified all of the editors, when at the time he wrote that all of the editors had been notified. Everything that I wrote is factually accurate and true. What DreamGuy has claimed against me is false. And on another matter, if you are going to delete my reply to posted comments about me (as you did on on DreamGuy's talk page Here, then you should also delete the precedding comments. I have a right to defend myself against DreamGuy's lies. It is unfair censorship when you delete my response. Esasus (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Read WP:HARASS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Esasus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was provoked into defending myself against false allegations made by the often blocked user DreamGuy. *The blocking admin became personally involved, and acted with bias when he blocked me. *DreamGuy had placed factually false statements about my conduct on his talk page. This required my response, as DreamGuy must have certainly known it would provoke my reply to his talk page. It was not my intention to harass. *The admin KillerChihuahua placed a statement on my talk page warning me of uncivil behaviour before he has even bothered to check the facts. *Everything that I wrote on DreamGuy's talk page is factually accurate, and everything that I wrote was made in direct response to what was written about me. I did not respond to harass, I only responded to defend myself against DreamGuy's false allegations. *The admin KillerChihuahua censured my response by deleting my response from DreamGuy's talk page, but still keeping the preceeding comments against me (now viewed as undefended because my reply was deleted by the admin). *I was not adequately warned of being blocked by the admin KillerChihuahua, who posted both the 1st and (so called) 2nd warning simultaniously while I was responding to his censorship deletion of my replied comments. I did not even see his warning until after I was blocked (and even then, his warning did not state that I would be be blocked).

Decline reason:

Per diffs below. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Further comment - Please note that it was three days after I had notified all editors, when DreamGuy falsely called me a liar on his talk page Here. This clearly required a response. It was clearly DreamGuy's intent to harass me and to provoke my reply. Esasus (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reviewing admin, should Esasus request unblock and I not be available for questions:

1. Concern about approach noted by other editor[3]
2. First warning[4] on DreamGuy's talk page
3. Second warning[5] on Esasus' talk page
4. Told to "move on" by Arcayne[6]
5. Esasus ignores warning and continues harassment[7]
6. KillerChihuahua removes harassment and warns again in edit summary[8]
7. Esasus edit wars to keep harassment on DreamGuy's page[9]

I think I have this all in order; I did not make all the posts so I may have one or two out of order. There was of course considerable backstory prior to these difs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Esasus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please review the history of the discussion and provide me with an analysis of the reason I was blocked. Such a review will show that I was bated and provoked into responding to a false allegation and lie that was made against me by DreamGuy (he falsely called me a liar on his talk page). The issue of my response ("I respectfully decline your invitation to join your hallucination") was then brought onto my talk page by the admin KillerChihuahua, who become personally involved in the dialogue to the point that the admin calls me "bitchy" (a violation of WP:CIVIL) before blocking me. I am asking for a serious review of this matter to explore how come I was blocked when DreamGuy lied about me on his talk page (while he was still serving his one-week editing block), yet I am sanctioned for defending myself with factually accurate replies.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but the evidence is clearly not in your favor. I also warn you to limit your unblock request to discussing your behavior rather than that of others. (see WP:NOTTHEM) —Travis^talk 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DreamGuy's block log and Esasus is the one who gets blocked? Esasus (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you don't have private email enabled, I do not have the capability of offering you advice that someone else cannot use against you (ie, 'Arcayne warned you', etc.). That said, you need to walk away from this. I know what you are feeling; I have been there before, and you need to know when to stop. If DreamGuy is as bad as you say (and I am personally staying out of this), there are lots of smart editors who will notice the behavior and report him for it. Your past with him (ie, a willingness to suicide yourself into a block alongside him) makes you an easy target for being tarred with the same brush. He posts at AfD, and has said so on numerous occasions. If he is addressing you directly, remind him to address the subject, and not the editor. If he doesn't, ask an admin for assistance. Otherwise, you might be better off leaving him be. AfD isn't the best place for you now, anyway. Work on getting editing time under your belt.
That is my advice, take it or leave it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done [10] Esasus (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, and good editing. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my WP:WQA comment was rather critical. I am aware that other editors have had problems with this editor, and I certainly don't think the fault is all yours. Now on to the reason for my posting here. There is some advice at WP:HARASS#Dealing_with_harassment and WP:Dispute resolution that I hope you may find helpful. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These [11] are the type of baits that I am refering to. Does the wiki community just allow him to go on and on with no repercussions? If I am dissuaded from responding to false rants against my character, then can I really expect someone else to police his incivility for me? Esasus (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was in no way baiting, it was an accurate description of your problem behavior. Speaking of... DreamGuy (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I call it or what? Checkuser confirmed that Azviz (talk · contribs) == Untick (talk · contribs) == Esasus (talk · contribs) == Wordssuch (talk · contribs) == Unionsoap (talk · contribs) and all are blocked now. I've not been wrong yet when it comes to sniffing out socks. DreamGuy (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed that Esasus turned out to be an abusive sockpuppet. I actually defended you, you ass-clown. FOAD, and do so quickly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that "Esasus" was a sock puppet, but it was abundantly clear that he was an abusive editor in many ways, and it always puzzled me that so many were willing to defend him. However, I do think it may be worth mentioning that one of the reasons may have been a reaction against some rather intemperate criticism of him. I repeatedly found that I agreed with the opinions of an editor who criticised Esasus, but did not feel able to express support because I might be seen as supporting the angry manner in which the criticism was expressed. I suspect that the same feature may have had a stronger effect on some others, encouraging them to actually oppose, rather than merely not to defend, quite reasonable views. I can't be sure of this, but my reason for mentioning it is as follows. Even if someone is being totally unreasonable (as I think Esasus often was) it can often be more effective to be polite and courteous to them, and express yourself as though you think you are dealing with a reasonable person with whom you disagree. That way you are more likely to attract sympathy and support from others. Just a thought, but it may be worth considering. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Memphis Drama Vol3.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:OsirisMarvel.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 06:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Strange Fruit Project, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strange Fruit Project. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rklawton (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:FromManToMachine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AgentRickMason.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Call me Under 666.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. czar ♔ 05:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Memphis Drama Vol3.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Atlanta2memphis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Roberts (author) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Roberts (author) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DraugenRarities.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:8-Ball (comics) sleepwalker cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BayJaCycleTay.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Disney Childrens Favorites 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]