User talk:CSHunt68

Check out what I've been up to. :) BOZ (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do Bahamut and Tiamat before long; hopefully this week. They've actually been in D&D products a lot longer than most of the others gods! BOZ (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Regarding your recent two rv on the article, if you read the book then please justify in the talk page why do you think that text in uncessary. Clearly Solomon presented the work of individuals who passed away (Roger Revelle the prime example), then the book presentation is limited to what he wrote. As you can see in that Talk page, the entire article's content has been discussed, and such changes required a discussion. Also, did you notice there is a "controversial issue" tag on the top of the Talk page. So please be WP:CIV and follow proper etiquette. In the meantime I politely request you rv yourself, and begin a section explaining your POV to justify the deletion of that text. Be sure I will not reverse it again. --Mariordo (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text as added is a better reflection of the book. The change was minor, and DID NOT require a discussion. I did notice the "controversial issue" tag. Did you read WP:CIV? I will not rv myself. I will ask you to follow WP:CIV, and not to revert my NPOV edits.CSHunt68 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on WP:ANI. This warning is, frankly, useless. I have tried discussing, to no avail. Mercenary2k continues to revert REFERENCED sections, putting in UNREFERENCED ones. Without edit commentary. Without discussion. I consider them vandalism, and am permitted to revert - 3RR does not apply.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling Bullshit, Bwilkins.CSHunt68 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your personal attack in the ANI page. Admins always protect the

talk) 01:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No personal attack at all. It is almost unfathomable that my revert would sit for over a day, and within two minutes of Mercenary2k's version being back up, you protect. Logic indicates that it is extremely unlikely, especially since you had already protected that version once. You should remove yourself from this discussion. I have attempted, on many occasions, to have "civilized discussion" with this user, to be greeted with reverts, deletions of my comments, and racism. I've frankly just about had enough. For you to jump in and shout about moral equivalency is ridiculous, and your actions are clearly suspicious. Stay away. Thank you.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Sure, next time you make an edit/revert to your version, please notify me so I am able to take action right away ;). How about paging me, or sending me a message via wikipedia so that I can be informed of the new edit war? </sarcasm>. Of course, I can guess why you have such an objection against me .... I won't mention it aloud here, but I have a hunch that's the reason :). No, I don't intend to remove myself from preventing any edit was from happening. No, I will not refrain from blocking both of you next time you violate 3RR or other policies. I have been completely neutral in this case and will continue to be so. You can like it or not like it, but as an admin, I will enforce wikipedia's policies in an unbiased manner, some of these actions may or may not result in

talk) 04:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The evidence speaks against you ... as does your insistence on staying involved.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the diffs from all my involvements and the timelines. I can understand your obvious frustration at not being able to continue the edit war, but honestly, you will be making a much better case for your edits, if you just follow dispute resolution policies, rather than inventing delusions of persecution. Good luck. --

talk) 05:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Frankly, it appears that you've decided to intervene on behalf of one of the party's involved. So be it. Not much I can do about that, other than point it out on WP:ANI.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can back up your statement above, please stop making such fake claims. You are not the first user pissed of when his/her pet version wasn't the one that was protected, a common trend evidenced from

talk) 05:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please. Enough. I've made my claim, and stated my evidence. You deny. Anything else? If not, please stop.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added numerous sections on the article talk page that I have concerns about. I would hope that you would comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, when you open up a thread on someone at

  

I am contacting you because I see you have contributed to articles about the military history of Pakistan or its armed forces. To help improve Wikipedia's coverage of this important topic, and to provide support and coordination of individual editors, the

If you would like to join up, as a founder member of this important new initiative, please add your name to the