User talk:ChrisGriswold

; Archives
	April 17, 2006 — June 14, 2006; June 1 6, 2006 — July 1, 2006; July 1, 2006 —July 20, 2006; July 21, 2006 —August 4, 2006; August 8, 2006 —September 5, 2006; September 6, 2006 —September 25, 2006; September 25, 2006 —October 10, 2006; October 11, 2006 —October 18, 2006; October 18, 2006 —October 26, 2006; October 27, 2006 —November 30, 2006; November 30, 2006 — January 4, 2007; January 4, 2007 — January 31, 2007; February 1, 2007 — February 21, 2007;

Moving Method.

Your moving method of your talk page has been effective, but sadly, it's now made me look like a vandal. Look at my edit count: 1, and look at the user talk section: it looks like I've been doing tons of editing your 13th archive. If I was in another editor review, or in my own RfA, or something that requires looking at this edit counter, other users would think that I edited your archive. What can be done to fix this? Acalamari 02:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty common method of archiving. It's suggested on the archiving page. Nobody will ever question this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Scumbag Rogue Admin (tm)

(seriously, you could print that on a t-shirt. If you make it, nerds will buy) :D

Regarding that matter we discussed before, I know it's a lot to wade through. I think that an overview of the history (paying attention to the edit summaries) will pretty much verify that few if any contributors get to make edits without getting reverted. He does trot out the old 'disruptive' and 'troll' label whenever addressing my edits. That said, he has been allowing someone to work on a cast section. That is, working on it on a temp page, as SlimVirgin protected the page. I think that pretty much nails the coffin on the WP:OWN concern. He (V) simply doesn't pay a lot of heed to admins or other editors (one of which, a pretty helpful guy simply melted down over this clown's antics here and finally here), The editor is questions seems to be operating in some weird vaccuum, coz his only response was to say, like, so sorry to see you go, here's your hat what's your hurry? I used to think that people like that only showed their colors on the Admin notice boards...Arcayne 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fred Rogers

I realized the error, and I thought that I reverted my own edit... I must not have finished. I was doing the editing at school, and the classes may have changed, causing me to cancel to repair. I'll be more careful to make sure my edits are accepted and acurate from now on. --Luxury-Yacht 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Metropolis AfD

"Spandex slap fights"?!?[1] I haven't laughed that much at a Wikipedia edit in a long time. CovenantD 22:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about Annihilation (comics)

i would really appreciate your input regarding this article, because like marvel's civil war, this article has also become too long and would also need some major clean up, thanks! †Bloodpack† 10:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GO AWAY NERD

If you don't want personal attacks directed at you, then don't attack me.

It's All About Me, by Chris Griswold

I'm Chris Griswold and I'm under the delusion that I'm a Wikipedia administrator. For instance, when I talk about Wikipedia, I refer to it as "our Wikipedia" so that users think they would actually hire a douchebag like me. You see, I take Wikipedia way too seriously, to the point where it's become an unhealthy obsession. If you look at my photo, you can see why I have no personal life. I'm butt ugly. And my personality sucks. So I spend ALL my time on Wikipedia bothering others to make up for the fact that I got beat up a lot in high school by girls. I also say things like "We are here for you" as if there are others in agreement with me. When actually, no one cares what I have to say because I'm a pain in the ass.

"By the way, some of that's libel, and you are legally responsible for that." Oh, okay. Go ahead and sue me then, little boy.

Hilarious. I got a little confused at the end about whether you were speaking as me or as you. You may wish to revise for clarity. Otherwise, I think it's good to go. Print it out, put it in an envelope and slap a stamp on that, and you'll be published in Harper's Bazaar easily. But I'm sure a lot of things come to you easily. I'm very proud of you, Rosemary. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, sir! Acalamari 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Acalamari. I thought his comeback was lame and lacked creativity. Hey Chris, I'm still waiting for that libel suit. Haha!

Battle infobox and fictional battles?

I've never heard of the battle infobox not being allowed for fictional battles. Can you please point me to where it says this for confirmation? I know of some articles that would need it removed. --Hemlock Martinis 06:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man in Black pointed me to WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks very much. Perhaps creating an infobox specifically for fictional battles would be an appropriate solution? --Hemlock Martinis 06:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant conversation on this subject is at WT:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, did you mean this? Perhaps WP:FICT could be retooled (it claims to be a notability standard), or we could keep the useful tool we have now and write a new one? Any thoughts? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do mean it, and while there has been some talk on WT:CMC, I think we need to actually get to this. You and I both fight cruft as much as possible. I mostly restrict myself to comics, and I tend to focus on plot summaries. I would really like to work with you and assess whether what we have can be upgraded to be more efficient or if we need to start fresh. The last I remembered, WP:CMC was going to require at least one secondary source for articles about comics characters, etc. But I think this needs to be on a higher level and to address all of the cruft. I refuse to even go near a Transformers article, and I find I am thwarted in trying to reduce plot summaries to a fair-use level by editors who WP:OWN the articles and desperately want minutiae in the synopses. My understanding of the purpose of plot synopses is that give a general explanation of the plot, nothing too detailed. Character moments, planning scenes, etc, do not belong in these, among other things. Any sort of detail deemed important that does not pertain to the actual plot of the series needs to go in another section for cited analysis, where their value can be judged aside from being a part of the story. I will take a look at what we have. I am a little tired right now, and my thoughts are scrambled, but I would like to work on this with you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

If you, Acalamari, or Chris continue to leave messages on my page I'm going to report you for harrassment and have YOU removed from Wikipedia. Now Chris launched the first personal attack on me. If he wants to dish it out and go against the big girls, he better be prepared for what he receives in return. Instead, he goes crying to his WikiFriends, who are under the delusion that they are administrators, and leave messages on my page. Obviously your purpose in life is to make sure that no one vandalizes Wikipedia (which includes misspelling words and things like that). I realize it makes you feel so important, almost like you had a REAL life!

Actually, I don't go crying to my WikiFriends, they take care of me here because I pay them, just as I pay my "friends" in real life. But you're right: You're attention does make me feel important. I have never been the object of someone's obsession like this before. I think I'm falling for you and I want to hug you and build a snowman together. Please cuddle with me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know he pays me with hats made out of money. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 60 is critically acclaimed

The show is critically acclaimed, it's clear that you have a problem with it, but take an important inforetion isn't a nice thing to do.

I don't know what you were trying to say. I love Studio 60. Check the article's talk page. The article is maintained by people who love the show, but they don't want that phrase in there and have been removing it for about a month and a half. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that insert. I'd have done it myself on the last edit, had I known it could be done. Claude 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Justice Society of America

Chris what do you think of the changes I've made to the template? Brian Boru is awesome 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done a great job. Much improved.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you'd be amused...

...that I was the fine recipient of a Rey 'Multitasker' Alfarez vandalism myself just before his block took place. Unbelievable! What goes through people's heads??!!

Hope you're doing well with your Columbia plans. Stay good, -- Tenebrae 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He worked his way down my list editors I respect. It was cute. He also created a spoof account called ChrisGriswald (notice the A) and combined the photo of me with some gay sex. It was very creative and, I would imagine, time-consuming.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

There's been a Request for Comment initiated at Talk:John Buscema#Request for Comment: NPOV and images, concerning a dispute over alleged violations and which includes links to two versions of an article, for comparison.

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics, and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 17:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You (User:Tenebrae) misspelled User talk:Skyelarke, and left the RFC notice on a userpage of a non-existant user. - jc37 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll fix immediately.--Tenebrae 18:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's so funny about Truth, Justice & the American Way?

Chris, you're way more active here than I, and I really don't know much about wikipedia procedures, so I general stick to simple content edits. That article has barely any history and hasn't been touched in over six months, feel free to start whatever process is needed for speedy deletion. Elijya 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re your revoke of my SuicideGirls 23 of 1000+ thing

You're right there Chris, thanks. I hope what I've replaced it with is more objective. I don't know if SG is recorded on Wayback or similar internet archive sites. I'll check in a few days, and maybe add a link showing my statement about 27feb07 is as i claim. I do feel like I should cite some sort of permanent source; I will read-up/enquire as to the reference status of such archive sites in the Wikipedia rules before I do, and try and go from there.

BTW sorry to be an annoying clueless new guy. I'll get a proper account and rtfm asap.

Best wishes - Chris B (manchester, uk) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.198.170 (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sweaters

According to imdb.com, many of the sweaters Fred wore on the show were made by his mother.

When writing on someone's talk page, please create a new section at the page's bottom and sign your name. As for your comment, the IMDb is not a credible source; it is a wiki, just like Wikipedia, which means that there is not a decent editorial process. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The red sweater, knitted by his late mother, was donated to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History by Fred Rogers on Nov. 20, 1984."[2] This fact was discovered within a 2 second Google search for 'Fred Rogers Sweater'. Rather than simply smack down users—and discouraging contributions—can you set a good example by at least attempting to be constructive? --SpyMagician 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, man. Is this how you respond every time someone criticizes you? You seriously looked for some way to turn the tables on me?

Look, I have seen the way you follow Future Whatever around from article to article, and it doesn't look good. Drop it and move on. You shouldn't have been editing articles related to you. You might not agree with what the user is doing, but it looks to me like he's found agreement on a large number of deletions, so it seems to me that what he's doing has been getting approval. So don't lecture me on discouraging contributions because I'm not stalking another user. Instead, I've actively made more than 20,000 constructive edits, and I watch articles like Mister Rogers for recurring vandalism and misinformed contributions. While I try to look into some, I don't have time to research every uncited claim editors add.

Plus, the only one I see "smacking someone down" is you, with your excessive criticisms of other editors' work, such as this one. I just make corrections civilly. And if you want to brag about how easy it is to find a citation for something, you should at least find something that supports the uncited claim. Take another look: The sweater in the Smithsonian was made by Rogers' mother, but it says nothing about the majority of them being made by her. Thanks for trying, even if it seems like you were just trying to make me look bad.

Please try to be more civil in dealing with other editors who are actually working on the encyclopedia and don't stalk other editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, the comments on this page responding to your edits speaks volumes towards how people feel about your work. It seems to me like you're taking this all too personally. And in the case of the Fred Rogers sweater, your reaction in response to overwhelming valid evidence—such as the Smithsonian Institution—is baffling. I wasn't looking for anything, but rather saw a reference to Fred Rogers, am a fan of his work, and was baffled by your response and the lack of a constructive citation on the story. Is there some particular reason you seem so happy to dish it out, but not take it? The big comfort I have in my favor is despite whatever petty issues you have with me on Wikipedia, I know for a solid fact I've contributed a lot more to the real world of comedy than you have done. Please continue to delete and harass other comedy and improv listings on Wiki to your heart's content and claim supposed COI on things you barely know about. Can anyone claim COI in your loving stewardship of the questionable Friday Nite Improvs page? Or will merely thinking that invoke your abusive wrath? I've been involved in comedy for quite a while, but have never heard of them before. Please continue to claim thousands of edits as a statement of validity to your judgement, because we all know that that quantity trumps quality every day, right? --SpyMagician 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know why you want to continue this. I have seen your harassment of other editors, and I would appreciate not receiving the same. The difference between some improv group articles and others is that some have been written about and others have not. Yes, the Friday Nite Improvs article was a conflict of interest. It was the first thing I edited on Wikipedia, much like the vanity articles many editors create when they first edit here. But I read WP:COI and then focused on making sure the article is NPOV and backing it up with claims. Additionally, I edit with my own name, so I am upfront about any such conflicts of interest. The article has been brought up for deletion before, and it has survived because it is emblematic of Pittsburgh improv.

Your statements about your contributions to the world of comedy vs. mine were unnecessary and inappropriate. Please take a look at your behavior on Wikipedia and question whether it is constructive or needlessly harsh.

As for the comment about quantity vs. quality, Nobody gets to 20,000 edits if they're making bad edits. Additionally, they don't become an administrator, which, admittedly, is not a big deal, but it means I get more whining on my talk page than a regular user because I have to make some decisions that will make people unhappy. So that's really not a good indicator of the quality of my edits.

I believe this whole conversation started with me asking you politely to be open about conflicts of interest and complimenting you on your work on the Onion. How does that come to this? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you reread my explanation as to why I didn't answer to begin with. And don't you mean, "Why don't I bow down to your 20,000 edits and realize your view is more valid than mine?" And after you do that, please look over the words you write to others—and the violent edits you make—and take a step back and realize that your behavior often-times warrants this response. And happily in the case of the Fred Rogers's sweater nonsense, your petty decision to smack down my edit was revereted by another editor less than 30 minutes later with even more proof of the claim. I would still like to know why you are so violent in your edits of practically any other comedy entry on Wikipedia but barely cast half the doubt you do on Friday Night Improvs. Even with the level of citations that article has, it still doesn't explain why similar articles get the stink-eye from you while you allow the page you hve a clear COI on to thrive. It's very clearly a COI. And as for your trite "I believe this whole conversation started with me asking you politely to be open about conflicts of interest and complimenting you on your work on the Onion.", again please realize your tone is very condescending and wreaks of smugness.

Please continue to edit Wikipedia and shape the articles in the way you see fit to do and violently lash out at anyone who dares to say anything against you. Also, I probably will never get 20,000 edits or admin status because I have this thing called a 'life'. Is that out of line to say that? Maybe. But perhaps Wiki editors like you who seem to be OCD in the level of edits you make should be a bit more accomodating towards others who contribute, but do not have any plans on going into the unpaid business of maintaining Wikipedia. It's a well known fact Wiki editors are frowned down upon nowadays because of their overzealousness over ridiculous topics and their constant air of suspicion. Welcome to the club Chris. --SpyMagician 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users Who Seem To Respect You.

I was recently looking through the list of users, and I found two that think you're "great." In fact, they think you're so great that they even made variants on your name; see here: 1 2. Acalamari 20:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I never saw either of those. I blocked another one the other day. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which one was that? I obviously missed it. Acalamari 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish me, it was ChrisGriswald. What a foul vandal that one was. Acalamari 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Metropolis

The result was keep, as is the case whenever there is no consensus to delete, which clearly did not exist. 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I must have misread it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of Fear Street

You deleted this article a little while ago. Could you please give me further explanation about why you did that? I've already checked the deletion log but don't understand what you meant by Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A1. Thanks Arfan (Talk) 15:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the Christopher Pike books, right? There was very little context to go along with plot summary. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's a popular series of books written by many different authors. It's a good list, if you don't like a list I can expand it easily. It's just I don't feel that detailed plot summary is necessary. Arfan (Talk) 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you...

...take a look at my talk page? You said to let you know if a certain editor was causing trouble. I'm not sure if his latest qualifies, but I wouldn't mind another set of eyes. CovenantD 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm temporarily blocking him. Can you give me diffs of warnings left for him? I know you said you dug through his history to find them. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Power level (Dragon Ball)

Regarding User:Power level (Dragon Ball)... what do you suggest we do? --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

That's flattering beyond words, to hear this from two peers and excellent editors. I'm not sure I have the temperament or the time — it's been weeks since I've been able to write an article, just from the upkeep of my watchlist. But I'm honored by your suggestion, as corny as I might sound. Maybe that would the be logical progression.... With great respect, --Tenebrae 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: (The) Shadow

Just wondering it you're keeping tabs on this...

— J Greb 04:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete Image

Could you delete Image:Lacinas-20mos-2.jpg? It's a professional photo, definitely copyright and was uploaded from my private website by Staciitugwell (talk · contribs) during his rampage on my User Page. Thanx, – Paschmitts 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx! – Paschmitts 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your very kind support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain America

Hi, Chris. You might want to consider semi-protecting Captain America. Several times already today, despite what it says on the talk page, anon IPs and others keep inserting as fact, "Captain America's dead!" This is, course, at least twice for Cap (remember Steranko's run?), and there's been Superman, and Green Lantern, and Reed Richards, and Nick Fury.... Since at least the Daily News is running with Marvel's press release on this publicity stunt, this might go on for days.

Don't know if you're around, so I'll slip this note over to Steve Block as well. Hang in there, buddy!--Tenebrae 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Sorry to bother you again, but did you overlook my comment above, you haven't made comments on my new post yet. Arfan (Talk) 12:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need more plot detail; it needs more real-world details. Citations to articles about the books, for instance. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Star

		The Pittsburgh Star
		For your contributions to Pittsburgh-related articles, and WP:PGH

BlackBear 17:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Matball. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. FireSpike 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Gonzales

Can you restore this since all professional basketball players are notable by default? --Howard the Duck 01:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ask LeBron James. --Howard the Duck 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And according to WP:BIO:

"Athletes:

Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis

FYI, the Philippine Basketball Association became a pro league even before the Euroleague. --Howard the Duck 03:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 100 Greatest Stand-ups of All Time. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jokestress 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are here because I deleted a list

Lists such as "Top 100 Cartoons", etc, which are copied whole cloth from an original source violate fair use: Lists created by a single agency are their intellectual property. They are copyright violations and should be removed. It is for this reason that a number of these articles have been deleted.

"Under US case law, e.g. Eckes v. Card Prices Update, lists of items that are created entirely or primarily as a result of editorial opinion are subject to copyright protection. This explicitly excludes lists which are derived solely from facts, statistics, or polling data, as only opinion based lists are considered by the courts to have the requisite creativity required for copyright protection under US law. Consequently, the inclusion of the entirety of such a list solely for the purposes of adding it to Wikipedia will generally constitute a copyright infringment. Excerpts of such lists can be used in Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use when they are associated with meaningful discussion of the contents of the list, but under typical circumstances, one should never reproduce the entirety of such a list." --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the lists you are deleting are based on polls, an explicit exception in that quotation. Since most of these lists are created for public reproduction, if the legal situation is unclear and there is no evidence the publisher opposes reproduction, the default view should be to keep. I agree that it is fair game to remove a panel-based or editorial list, but removals of public polls or group polls should not be warranted. Particularly so when the entire scheme of the poll was to encourage public reproduction and debate. I think the Mystery Writers' list is unclear on this nexus, and I will leave it be for now. However, I think that much more public discussion is warranted when you are dealing with such highly used and linked articles. Tfine80 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, many of the lists you are deleting are based solely on facts available to the public. The Fortune 1000 is just revenue data from SEC filings and other public records. Please stop all the unilateral list deletion until we can have a discussion somewhere. Jokestress 16:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Patterns

Please elaborate on the concept of "editing patterns" as you claimed in the editing of the bio for Jack Szwergold when you state. "Re-adding because of SpyMagician's editing patterns and his ignoring questions on the subject". --SpyMagician 18:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you or are you not Jack Szwergold?[3] --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. And I am embarassed I deleted the original bio tag placed by Future Fun Jumper (TIC) because that editor was—and still is—quite abusive and destructive towards anyone who disagrees or casts any doubts on his edits or style of editing. Had he approached things a tad more tactfully, I would have left the tag as is. But his behavior simply got under my skin and I was not going to allow him to bully me in the same way that he has bullied tons of others on Wikipedia. In the case of the edit I made to Maria Schneider's entry, I admit the wording was off, but the fact remains that the site she maintains has not been updated for over a year and a few months. My edit in that case was done to assure that one did not have to do monthly edits—like some have—to reflect the 'frozen' nature of that site. Now that said, please elaborate on "editing patterns"? Are you saying that I can never add edits/material/links to any Wiki article related to comedy based on my past with The Onion? --SpyMagician 19:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]