User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive 4

This is a User talk archive page. You probably shouldn't edit it.

Legal promises

Heh. Yeah, I like that. How about this: If they threaten legal action, we threaten to block them; if they promise legal action, we promise to block them; if they state the fact that they will pursue legal action, we state the fact that we will block them. I think that might clear things up. ;-) -- SCZenz 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot

Please don't remove the protected tag. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Do you have anything to add to Beckjord arbitration....Bishonen mentioned that her image gallery had been vandalized by Beckjord after she blocked him. I already put in a bunch of diffs on the evidence page and didn't want to hog them all, so if you want to mentioned Bishonen's comment to me, that would be great. It's a tedious chore but we should all voice our thoughts, especially with the level of personal attacks he has waged.--MONGO 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's on my todo list; I've been wracking my brains trying to figure our what arbitration might accomplish, and thus what evidence is relevant. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What's up

What's new? -- Eddie 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bektashism

There's an edit war going on at Bektashism between a new user and a few others. I dont really care about either version of the page and wish to avoid needless controversy, so I'd prefer if you'd protect the page. freestylefrappe 02:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't really care about either version of the page either, but until I hear a good reason not to be, I'm biased toward the one with more content. In any case, the page is on my watchlist and I'll protect if the warring continues. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

beckjord

He's up to his old tricks of bringing his revert wars to other articles editors he considered enemies work on... He's been reverting Mythology back to an ancient version of the article (back when Myth still redirected to it) and putting in misleading edit comments... you can tell it's him because on the latest one he just edited Bigfoot on the same IP. Since it doesn;t look like vandalism at a glance, I'll run out of reverts really fast if he keeps it up, I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on it. DreamGuy 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably won't take much. In the past when he's tried this he gave up fairly quickly. Hopefully that's the case here too. DreamGuy 21:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Think twice about your actions...

I don't think linking to a half-baked (quarter-baked?) list like that improves this article in any way.

I think that was a pretty rude thing to say considering I wasn't even the one who made the page. I thought a nice link to the page that I restored would be nice because I thought cleaning up the page and giving it a nice place in Wikipedia was the thing to do. Whether "half-baked" or not, something someone else worked hard on doing does not deserve to be just left out, especially by someone as trustworthy as a Wikipedia Administrator. After all, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about; its just a bunch of amateurs building upon the work of another amateur. In the future, don't go shunning the bad pages, rather fix them up like a true administrator should.—the preceding unsigned comment is by JP06035 (talk • contribs) 22:02, January 29, 2006 (UTC)

This was in reference to this edit of mine, removing a newly-inserted link to List of famous people who died of pneumonia from Pneumonia, a Featured Article. I don't mind saying that the list, as it now stands, is a terrible article. I'm glad you are trying to improve it! It isn't rude to call a bad article a bad article. But until it's a lot better than it is now, it hurts a good article like Pneumonia to have a prominent link to it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. I just thought it was the right thing to do with that page. Thanks for the tip(~~~~)! I'm sorry I was rude, too. --Jared 22:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you please show your knowledge of astrology before your edits

Dear Bunchof grapes - if you are to revert on astrolog-related pages, then please do so before reverting back without sourcing - which you continue to do without citing any sources of your own. Please do so, and also make sure they are verifiable. Thanks.Theo 05:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at this edit of yours. You edit summary is "added more source material." But that's not what your edit is, rather, it is a reversion to your preferred version of the page. (Which includes bad material like "Francis Bacon (Shakesphere)".) That just isn't acceptable. Work to build the page in a consenual fashion; stop reverting; stop using dishonest edit summaries. At least say "revert, and added more source material" in your edit summary: be honest. As long as you continue to blindly revert to your version, I don't need to know anything about judicial astrology to discern that you are not editing in a manner that is helpful to Wikipedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this could happen if only nit-picking - such as what you are doing here - can cease, and good writing, and editing can continue. If you are to seek "honesty" Bunchofgrapes, then please do so by monitoring your own actions. You make a lot of accusations that are not true; and then consider "reverts" as hostile. I started this particular article, and welcome additions from others in the Wikipedia community. However, your additions are POV, and NOT again - not sourced. I again ask you to also cite sources Bunchofgrapes if you are to edit with your point of view - which, by the way, is not "neutral" nor written in a manner based on knowledge of Judicial Astrology that from my view is not helpful to the Wiki-Page in question. You do an awful lot of of complaining Bunchofgrapes, and instant reverting while accusing others of things that are common to Wikipedia - writing, and editing, and - sourcing. I suggest you then also please add your knowledge of astrology, and judicial astrology before your own particular reverts. Please source. Consensus does not mean to agree of POV, but to source materials that relate to the subject at hand. If you have knowledge of this subject opn astrology and its related subjects, then, please, by all means, add your knowledge, and not your personal point-of-view. Please cite sources. Thanks.Theo 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in Astrology. I've never made an edit to an astrology page that wasn't undoing vandalism or one of your usually-dishonestly-labelled blind reverts, as far as I can recall. My only interest is to encourage you to stop edit warring, an occupation I fear may be futile. When you revert back to an older version like that, you throw away work others have done in the meantime. It is wrong and disrespectful to the others who are editing the page. Most of your edits add very little, other than to go back to a previous version. That's not editing, it's revert warring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It shows in your reverets - that you have no interest - which is why I asked. Also, Bunchofgrapes - Editing, and writing is an ongoing thing, and I do not consider my additions, with sources, I add, to be "wrong" or "disrespectful" to anyone. I know how to edit, and how to write, and am not "revert warring" as you claim. You presume, and you are wrong. I cannot, and have not "thrown" away anyone's work. I write, edit, and continue to source. I would suggest you re-read Jimbo Wales for more on what Wikipedia is about. I did, and am am applying his policies and guidelines in my writing, editing, and citing sources. Thanks.Theo 05:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes, Request You Please Cease Revert Warring

Bunchofgrapes, I respectfully ask you to please stop your instant reverts on my edits. If you have a problem with any of my edits, then do so from knowledge, but explaining what is wrong about the sourced materials, and edits, rather than making blind statements designed to allow you to revert for no reason. And, again, please cite your sources. You seem to not be able to cite anything that would back up your instant reverts, and accusatory tone telling others that they are reverting, when you have made several instant reverts with no explaination on the edit, or added source. Please cease this and cite your sources, edit the materials according to Jimbo Wales' NPOV, and make sure your sources are verifiable before your reverts. Thanks.Theo 05:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Jimbo Wales' NPOV? Surely Jimbo, like the rest of us, has his own POV? NPOV is not "owned" it is a goal, a desired perspective of articles. Perhaps Theo is so fond of tossing Jimbo's name around that he is now using it in nonsensical fashion, simply because he thinks doing so will impress and awe us, much as he seems to expect his "expertise" to awe and impress. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Jimbo Wales Theodore7 Jimbo Wales has Jimbo Wales come Jimbo Wales to Jimbo Wales believe Jimbo Wales the Jimbo Wales whole Jimbo Wales world Jimbo Wales are Jimbo Wales as Jimbo Wales easy Jimbo Wales to Jimbo Wales deceive Jimbo Wales as Jimbo Wales any Jimbo Wales astrology Jimbo Wales clients Jimbo Wales he Jimbo Wales has. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

roflmao, that was great. Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Restoration spectacular

In my opinion "Marvel as Venus ascends into the heavens" was better, more spectacular and dramatic. I hope you don't have anything against Roman paganism? :-D --BorgQueen 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the universal truism that "monkeys are funny" trumps dramatic spectacle any day. :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I hate monkeys. --BorgQueen 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is probably why it takes so long for your pages to reach the main page BoG - you have no sense of style and taste (unlike some - modesty forbids me mentioning names!) most people would rather see Venus than monkeys. Giano | talk 18:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey hey now, Restoration spectacular is the fine monkey-featuring page in question. As far as I can recall, most of my pages have been sadly lacking in monkeyness. As far as BorgQueen's hating monkeys, that explains a lot about Monkey brains. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing can adequately explain Monkey brains (the delicacy, not the article.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I done fixed the banner nice. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

The Ghostly RFA

I wasn't going to provide the links (incidentally I don't think I ever saw the last one!) I rather hoped he would just be so ashamed he'd withdraw. I had been trying to build bridges with "The Editor in Chief" as I call him, well he's a big Ozzie bloke no doubt he'll survive. Sadly Ghost operates in such a way his candidacy seems likely to succeed anyway - another reason mine was a token protest. I'm sure you meant well, and I bear no grudges (in this case anyway). Just in case you are accused of being part of my personal Mafioso too, for the interest of all: I'm sorry, I should not have made that comment on your RFA, I regretted it the second I had pressed save. So we'll consider it quits - yeah? Giano | talk 17:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The thought here being that before this apology, I was mad at you and thus wasn't part of your mafioso? Hmm, not sure that's going to work ;-)

Now I see where your reluctance to provide links came from - sorry I missed that, but on balance I still hold out hope the RfA can turn in a few days, so I think they were worth providing. As for you, I couldn't stay mad at anyone as amusing as you, Giano. Unneeded apology quite accepted. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"his candidacy seems likely to succeed anyway - another reason mine was a token protest." Should'nt that be another reason, Giano, for us to bury the hatchet (and not in eachother)? Otherwise you only seem to be tramping out the vintage where the sour grapes are stored;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite a tightrope you are walking, with your simultaneous efforts to bury the hatchet and to point out, IN ALL CAPS DIFF LINKS, all of Giano's evils. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Giano is doing quite a good enough job of that himself, even with you volunteering to dig up the dirty laundry for him. I will stop once he has accepted my peace offer and stops campaigning against me.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to stop anything. I just don't think you are demonstrating a tempermant suitable for admin rights. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Understood, I respect your decision. However, just as a hypothetical question, if the roles were reversed and Giano was up for admin, would you find his temperment suitable? We are talking temperment here, not judgement, or maturity or editing abilities.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't really cut the knot between tempermant, maturity, and jugement all that cleanly. In any case, if Giano were to run today, I would - very sadly - oppose on that basis. He's a rapscallion, that one. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No arguements here, thank you;> This demented Diogenese has found an honest man--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's nice to know I'm not stalked [1] But at least you all have nothing to worry about! More of an avenging angel me Giano | talk 20:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer a Charlie's angel...but if you insist;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nauseating food - another round

Ok it's my turn now. Check out History of sushi. Seemingly innocent article, but read carefully the "Sushi in Japan" section... --BorgQueen 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but I'm completely inured to fermented fish grossness :-) Check out Surströmming if you haven't already; the Swedes are still going for stuff like that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was refering to this part: "A man who had been visiting a friend in Kyoto got on a horse to go home. A drunken female street vendor sleeping nearby woke up, became dizzy, and vomited on a bowl of narezushi she had been selling. Instead of throwing it away or trying to scoop out the vomit, she quickly mixed it into the narezushi. Seeing this, the man pointed out that narezushi was like a pile of spit to begin with, and those who bought it often had probably often eaten other unintended ingredients. From this point on, the man would tell any one who would listen to him to not buy narezushi from anyone or any store." --BorgQueen 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I read it; thanks for putting that on my page :-P I guess I kind of felt like that didn't really "count" because it was just a retelling of a 12th century story, rather than actual hard data about how nasty this stuff was (or about eating vomit, for that matter). Now that I think about it, I suppose being a dog owner — a lazy dog owner — has inured me to vomit-eating in general. "One of the dogs threw up." "Eh, one of 'em will clean it up." (KJV Proverbs 26:11 "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.") —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:WHOIS

But I have made a noteworthy achievement. WikiFanatic 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Then at least get someone else to put you on there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Marveling

ROFLMAO, thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RfAr for Theodore7

Do you think you could add judicial astrology and Theo's reverts there to it? I would, but I think I'm approaching my 100 diff limit. This may help you. For that matter, you could check the articles he's edited and if you see any more evidence of revert warring, you should add that to his case. I've finished with my evidence section now...if you see anything you think I should change, or find more diffs for the articles I have there (this for the interests of keeping all relevant data in one section), please let me know.

My only hope is that Theodore does not receive an indef ban or anything of the sort from this. I think I could suggest to the ArbCom, at a later, more appropriate date, that I could act as a sort of mentor for him, especially if he gets put on probation. He has a point of view I think Wikipedia could benefit from, if only he would ease up on the edit warring. And for some reason, I think he likes me. We'll see how it plays out, though. Cheers. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do a little more, but really, the case than Theo has revert-warred is pretty strongly established, already. If I had to speculate on outcome, I'd bet on a 1-revert per-week per-article probation, punishable by yadda-yadda blocks up to a week or, after the nth violation, one year. Whether Theodore7 would be able to have that not turn quickly into a 1-year block is a question. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you lot! You disgraceful Wikisnitches! LOL! Bishonen | talk 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

The clicks began to switch, Bunchofgrapes, to bitch

And suddenly the logic started to unhitch

Just then the Snitch, to satisfy an itch

Went typing on her keyboard churning out the kitsch

And Oh! what happened then was rich

The site began to pitch, the Wiki had a glitch

It landed on the Wiki Snitch in the middle of a ditch

Which was not a healthy situation for the Wiki Snitch

(Permission granted for anyone to dig in and improve my wiki snitch showtune. For any deprived enough not to recognize it, it's from The Wizard of Oz.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

thanks for the suggestions. I don't think someone is out to get me that much. All of this happened right after I installed IE 7 Beta. My main browser is firefox, though. I also noticed that my IP address, which had been the same since September 2005, changed. I checked security settings on firefox and it doesn't seem to have a list of blocked sites. I'm pretty sure it's not a firewall problem either, but I will look into that further. I'm at a university, if that makes any difference. Sorry if all of this is kind of jumbled. Thanks very much for your help.--Alhutch 20:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as it turns out, you were exactly right. The link you provided about the hosts file proved to be invaluable. After I pinged en.wiki.x.io on command prompt and got 127.0.0.1, I went in and looked at the host file and it had about en.wiki.x.io 127.0.0.1 in there. I was very surprised, but also glad to get rid of the problem. Can't thank you enough for your help :-). Keep up the good work, Alhutch 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The situation is under investigation. The culprits will be found and dealt with appropriately ;-) Alhutch 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord

A final decision has been reached in this arbitration case.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Humor

Thanks for the snicker you left in the middle of that very odd NLP/3RR discussion on my page. It did lighten my mood. On a more vindictive note, if it sounds like "so much fun" to you, I highly recommend you go edit the darn article yourself. Or just show up, anywhere near anyone involved in that page. Apparently that is all that is needed in order for an editor to get long rambling WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations posted on their talk page, and I notice your talk page could use some fresh subjects and excitement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My talk page has grown a little stale, yes. I'm sure NLP is a perfectly delightful article to edit. Wasn't the ArbCom ruling to designate a number of admins as mentors for the page, or something like that? Have the intrepid volunteers stepped forth? Shall I nominate you? ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer, but no, they have been named and I am not among them. I appreciate your desire to help me grow through challenging situations, and will repay the favor as soon as possible. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Block request

Hey, Bunch, could you see your way to blocking User:KoolKat, who is trolling on my page, for at least 48 hours, please? I'm not in practice an admin right now,[2] myself. He is only the latest in a long series of socks and anons who are all the same user, and seem to get their jollies from pestering me. With semiprotection, at least it slows him down a little to have to get new socks with some forethought. There's a warning on his page, and if (when) he starts putting up templates saying he's the innocent victim of collateral damage, he is not to be believed. Bishonen | talk 08:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

Done. I took the liberty of making the block indefinite, based on a combination of factors: no useful edits, harrassment of you, almost certain sock of previous similar editors, and impersonation of User:Cool Cat. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It's great for us commoners to know a helpful admin. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

Gaaaa! Thank goodness the proposed decision is leaning toward immediate readminship for El_C when the case closes. Too bad the case will never close, since they keep adding new people to it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

STOP EDITING NOW!

And go look at Interiot's tool. —Ruud 16:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Woot, 5000! android79 16:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks, Ruud! That was really great of you. 5000 edits is a pretty significant accomplishment for me, made especially challenging because I dilute my total running my army of trolling sockpuppets... ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Aww, you ruined it now. ;-) android79 16:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!!! and Oh my gosh, me too, only I missed it! This is 5016. I went to admire yours... and while I was there checked mine, to see how far away I was. We should throw a party... we could even invite the commoners. KillerChihuahua^?!?

I had no idea you'd been around that long, Killer! The 5000 club is looking good. On a tangential topic, it's interesting/creepy the way you can tell what kind of sleep patterns people have by looking at the new editcounter. I think we should start a contest. Dare you to find anybody who sleeps longer and more consistently than me! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're right, I do sleep well compared to Bishonen! David D. (Talk) 00:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From 11 to midnight? Hah. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A quick survey has convinced me that I am just wasting my life sleeping. I may well hold the record for least night-time editing of any significant contributor. But then that's nothing my stepson hasn't told me before. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed comparing my "project vs. articles vs. talk" edits, and I noticed that Bishonen, who started the project a long time after I did, has nearly as many edits. I also could tell the months when I moved, when my blues were deepest, etc. I also prided myself on lowest edits per page. Geogre 11:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're also a pretty good sleeper, relative to most. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And everybody can see that I used to edit articles once upon a time, before I degenerated into babbling on talkpages in my sleep. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

Worse than Bishonen is kappa. And I don't think he's using a bot. David D. (Talk) 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

!!! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not only can you see when I sleep, but you can pretty much tell my teaching schedule. :-) "Before class...edits. During class hours, no edits. After class, a few edits. Goes home, a few. Then none." I like sleeping. I want to make a bumper sticker that says, "I'd Rather Be Sleeping." Geogre 04:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You can see me making and eating dinner after work pretty clearly. I have a new theory on Kappa: maybe he moved halfway around the world halfway through his Wikipedia history, and therefore has balanced out his around-the-clock editing. Probably not, but I suppose it's possible. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

See, I'm not a particular fan of his, so I'd best bite my fingers and not offer up the other possible explanation for editing around the clock. Geogre 15:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Martial Law is very close to sleeping as well as me. I leave any conclusions to be drawn from that to the reader. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for Image:Edward's crown PD cleaned.png. Part of the problem with my trying to intervene in image disputes is that I'm no good at editing images--gotta work on that. So far, it seems to be working. . . thanks again. Chick Bowen 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

waste disposal

i want an exact meaning of waste disposal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.69.73.111 (talk • contribs) 13:41, February 18, 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want a definition of a term you should go to Wiktionary. --BorgQueen 16:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate some fresh eyes on Prem Rawat

If you have time please check the hornet's nest. Thanks. Andries 19:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BAN Links

Can you place these on my list of Wikipedian protocol ? Martial Law 04:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Wiki-Alert

Got what looks like a strange violation of WP:NPA going on in the Bigfoot discussion page. Re.:"We hate Beckjord for exposing Coleman". See for yourself. Martial Law 08:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What is that about ? Martial Law 08:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The attack was made by this IP: 64.12.116.202

That is just so bizarre. Martial Law 08:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Time of revert was "08:29 20,Feb. 2006. Martial Law 08:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Is someone trying to bait Beckjord ? Martial Law 08:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

ML, if you look at the other two edits to Talk:Bigfoot right after that by 64.12.166.202, it's obviously beckjord himself. Ignore or revert his incoherent ranting. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7

This arbitration case has closed. Theodore7 is banned for six months from editing astrology- or astronomy-related articles. He is also placed on personal attack parole for a year, and is required to use edit summaries for the next six months. These remedies will be enforced by blocking. For further details, please see the case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Monkey brains on the run

Guess what! Monkey brain has been translated into Japanese. A few days ago I had requested at Japanese wiki and they have done it so quickly... I admire Japanese efficiency :-D --BorgQueen 14:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And a bonus! It's much less nauseating in Japanese... at least to those of us who can't read it ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon

sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.90.172 (talk • contribs) 05:58, February 22, 2006 (UTC)

sorry

Anagram!

Yes, an anagram! Thank you for correcting me, and I hope you found my neoplorgismanteau amusing. I intend to weild the term freely in AfD discussions. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Plorg! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly! BD2412 T 23:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And 'Faversham' to you, too. Sir Jethro di Bodine

Durian

You're welcome to join the efforts to improve Durian, which is an anthropologically significant edible in Southeast Asia. I have written down a to-do list on its talk page — if you have never travelled to the region probably you haven't tasted this curious fruit though. Its sulfurous compounds give quite a complex flavor, which also backs the theory it has evolved for animals, rather than humans. --BorgQueen 19:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good one to work on; I think I shall join in. Durians are actually available at at least one prominent Asian grocery in Beaverton, Oregon, but I've never been brave (foolhardy?) enough to buy one (they're pretty expensive here), having heard many times about the fearsome smell. Of course I admit it's just a cultural bias, since I'm delighted to eat extremely stinky cheese, smeared with the same bacteria that give people B.O.... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you take a trip with your wife to SE Asia sometime. Nice place to have a vacation, really, and foods are outrageously cheap. (In my standard, that is. Foods cost at least double in my native country, but some locals still complain about the price!) Also I've noticed Caucasian males tend to be popular among local girls but since you're married that won't be your concern.. :-D --BorgQueen 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit histories

Thanks. Alexander 007 17:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Snaps

I'm cool about the revert. I'm just doing some alcohol classification and it looked like those two things were the same. Any idea what the actual difference is between snaps and schnapps? Not that it matters - if you say they are different enough to be two entries I'm cool with that - I'm just curious. The other matter (violates the GFDL) has concerned me. What would you suggest I do in future to prevent such violations. Advice is always welcome. Cheers! SilkTork 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at snaps and schnapps again it appears that they are simply different cultural spellings for the same thing. I have suggested a merger. Cheers! SilkTork 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Just make sure that whenever you copy some text from one page to another, you state that in your edit summary. For example, a good edit summary for the edit I mentioned above would have been "merged from snaps". That way there's a trail of attribution in the history." [...] —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Air crash as popular culture"

OMG, I was tired, tunnel-visioned when I wrote it, but now I realize what an outrageous classification it was. :-P --BorgQueen 19:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a little disturbing :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I should have been more creful about my revert [3]. I'm not going to do anymore, but will continue to explain my edit in the discusison page. Thanks.--MONGO 16:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The boy in the sand

Thanks for the copyedit, but before it comes out of the safety of my User Space - is it POV? - bearing in mind no where else ever has the corruption of this particular case been mentioned - Am I leading the witness or allowing (with references) them to draw their own conclusions. Of course, in reality, the whole thing was obviously a big bed of corruption so that Ward (openly corrupt) could keep his title, the others were just glorified book makers who made a fortune. McKay and Byrne were naive illmatched peasants sacrificed to the whims of the aristocracy and greed of their more intelligent peers. Of course that would be own re-search - I should have saved this one and written the book myself Giano | talk 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're venturing too far into Original Research or POV territory in the article, Giano. I do wish some of your references looked a little more, shall we say, old-school: citing what are basically message boards to back up assertions is bad mojo. Still, a very good article - if I have time I shall return to do some more copyediting. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• if you do return could you have a look at why the references are not appearing after after "12" - the usual reaon is I have typed | instead of / but thats not the case here. Yes I know aboyt the message board ref - I assume it is the "Gilbert Odd ref" the daft twit does not say where he found that quote - I've been going through the used book sites trying to find a likely and cheap book by Odd - but he wrote quite a few it seems, I don't want to buy 14 books and still not have the quote - I shall seek it out elsewhere. Thanks for the edits - I shall keep it in user space untill it is finely honed and complete. Giano | talk 09:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm a little late to help there: I see the crowds have been at the article, giving it the (to me) confusing multiply-referenced notes business to boot. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks to ALoans genius, it is indeed truly referenced now. Explicitly which reference was it you thought should be better, the one that says some thing like "disgraceful affair"? I've just a bought a big expensive book which should clear these things up accuratly - if I can ever find them again that is! Giano | talk 17:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that was the one that caught my eye [4]. It was the first link from the Cyberboxing that I examined, so I rashly assumed that all the other links from that site were equally iffy-looking, but I guess the other links look decent enough. Of course, many of them still violate the rule of thumb that you should never trust a web site with a garish color theme :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Garish colours? GARISH COLOURS? - you ever been to Italy Bunch? Giano | talk 17:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, GARISH COLORS. I Eurailed through Italy in, um... 1992. Genoa, Venice, Siena, Pisa, Florence, Rome, Naples, and Capri, if I remember correctly. I still miss the gelato. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose in Idaho you don't have bougainvillea . Streuth! is there any colour in that place at all? Does anyone choose to holiday there? No wonder there are so many of you here every year - you must all come for some colours. So you got to Napoli - what happened frightened of water or the ticket ran out? Giano | talk 18:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Are you asking why I didn't go on to Sicily? Truth be told, I was young and ignorant, and it never even occurred to me, that I can recall. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Question

Thank you for your question, by the way that's a very interesting image at the top of your page there.

Anyway, about 70% of my edits are welcomes nowadays, and it's fairly easy to determine which ones those are(look for a talk page and a black N next to it), and maybe another 25% are commas and such(which I assume nobody cares about, since I don't), so if my edit summary total is around 5%(I didn't check), well, there ya go. Karmafist 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist's judgment

Yeesh. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:21 UTC (2006-03-01)

Vandals

Hi, I'm afraid I just don't agree with this "theory" about self fulfilling prophecies. I have yet to see an account or vandal who beginning as a vandal does not continue in the same manner. Being leniant with vandals is wasting a lot of time for a lot of Wikipedia users and damaging the project. Arniep 18:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any Wikipedia policy or guideline that suggests we should assume good faith with obvious vandalism. Regards Arniep 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you've never seen it because you bite them all. Silly experimentation is how many editors started. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what heuristic you use to draw your line between "possible silly test edit" and "obvious vandalism". For me, from the two contributions of the user in question at the time, there wasn't enough data to decide either way. So, no, you don't have to AGF obvious vandalism, but a few silly edits from a new account, in my book, is not obvious vandalism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see how a deliberate addition of false information Ris not obvious vandalism. People can test without doing that. Arniep 18:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ludicrously false, you mean. (For any watching in: We're talking about Andymac.mac (talk · contribs). He added the fact that Simon Bolivar is "Credited with leading the killing of George Washington in 2031". Clearly he was out to bring down Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy with such subtle and sneaky misinformation. Yup. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but this now feels like you are being uncivil. I was just trying to fight vandalism in good faith. FYI the template {{subst:verror2}} seems to be a better template to use in these instances (there are some more at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace) Regards Arniep 19:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I know you are acting in good faith, no worries, and I apologize if my use of sarcasm there came across as rude. I think verror2 is a fine warning to give under those circumstances, but I don't think test is inappropriate either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think we should post warnings which accurately reflect the nature of the edit otherwise other users may get a false impression about the previous activity of a user. IMO verror2 or test2 would have been the correct warning for that edit. I frequently see people using test1, and then a user continues to vandalize for hours with people frequently not adding next level warnings when reverting which means it prolongs the time until the user is blocked and makes a lot of wasting of time for other users reverting more vandalism. Regards Arniep 20:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are much more confident than I in your ability to discern the motives behind a new user's edits after he has made only one or two. As I said, I don't think there is actually any way to tell that this particular editor wasn't just testing the system out, so there's no need to jump to the more biteful templates. Tell you what: start with test, and then if you find that hours later the user has continued to make a bunch of vandalizations, and nobody's warned then, feel free and jump right past test2 and 3 to test4. Just don't bite them before you really have enough information either way to decide. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

(reduce)And yet, he persists in adding an escalated template to User talk:Andymac.mac despite the fact that no further vandalism has taken place. He claims he is "free to do so" and do you know, I cannot find a guideline or policy against this? Bunch, do you know of any guideline or policy which covers it specifically? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, just common sense. Let it go... hopefully both sides of this discussion have made some progress toward a better understanding of the others' point of view. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur about the common sense, had already more or less given up, not in agreement with you on the "better understanding". ah well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is we deal with so many vandals we can't be expected to personally go and check on a user who we posted a test1 on over the past week to see what sort of edits they have made. That is why we need to give other users who will encounter them an accurate indication of what character their previous edits were. I now realise I was wrong to just jump on Chichuahua's page as I would have probably reacted in the same way -this is definitely something that needs to be examined in the community as whole. Arniep 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever read User:Mindspillage/admin? She's been here a lot longer than me and I respect her take on these matters. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have and I disagree with it. I'll hopefully come up with something similar over the next couple of days. Cheers Arniep 00:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

user box poll, i'm anti-userbox and voted oppose

Alot of the oppose votes are from anti-userbox people. What the proposal does is move POV userboxes into userspace. That's all it will accomplish. If the proposal is agreed upon nothing will change, people will still have a ton of userboxes, people will still use them to create voting blocks, nothing substancial will change. What will happen is the use of images in userboxes will still allow people to click on "what links here" to create a block, it's just instead of clicking "what links here" on a template page they will be clicking it on an image page. Seraphim 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I must not have read through the oppose votes carefully enough - I suppose the oppose votes from the trolls on the subject jumped out at me. Like I said, this deal makes neither side happy. I like that it cleans up the Category namespace and Template namespace some; I wish it went further of course (your point about images is a good one). I'd say it's a step in the right direction... not the end of userbox conflicts, though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that cleaning out category and template namespaces are a good thing. But Policy line 1 "Userboxes should generally be permitted as free expression (subject to the caveats in A). When tied to this section from A "Users should be permitted relatively free expression on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance. They may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)" means that all userboxes are 100% protected if they are in userspace. I think that is giving way way way too much protection to userboxes. Seraphim 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrm? Where is the userbox poll-of-the-week this time? android79 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. The poll, she is a big one. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this one might actually succeed and mean something in doing so. Finally. android79 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't going to accomplish what the majoirity of the people voting support think it will. Every vote for support means that users have the right to make any userbox they want on any topic they want as long as it's kept out of template space no matter how offencive it is. Seraphim 22:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Userspace is still subject to WP:CIV and WP:NPA, no matter what this new policy says. android79 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but stuff doesn't have to be uncivil or a personal attack to be extremely offencive :) Seraphim 23:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a great many people who will find the text alone on my userpage offensive even without the boxes. Offense is in the eye of the beholder much of the time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the only offensive thing I could find on your user page, try as I might, was one ramblng run-on sentence. :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just awful, isn't it? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually worse than the run-on sentence is that he 'insists' on spelling his name in Hungarian. There must be people who'd be offended by that! ;-) David D. (Talk) 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

rƒa · ɐƒɹ

Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

FYI- The ejournal you removed the link to earlier recently ran an editorial bemoaning the fact that they were not listed on Wikipedia and asked their readers to jump in and add one, or, barring that, remove mention of all other magazines. The editor is quite egotistical and somehow thinks he's more important than anyone else, yet can't keep enough subscribers to even print up content as a newsletter. Unfortunately the handful of people it has left seem to be quite fanatical.

I don't understand why you removed the Ripper Notes link. Sure, the site tries to sell subscriptions, but it's a professional magazine, the leading on in the field, and they don't survive by giving all their content for free. The site does have sample articles, and they do provide articles to other sites (such as many articles on Casebook). Much of the content in the Jack the Ripper article here ultimately owes its existence to having been first published in that magazine. Perhaps it should be listed as a reference instead of just an external link or something, but to remove all mention of Ripper Notes -- especially after an attack by a group of dedicated spammers -- seems completely wrong. The external links policy doesn't prohibit links to all commercial sites, it just wants notable ones that aren't spammy. Victrix 05:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

(Incidentally, the newest Ripper Notes cover art features grapes quite extensively, ont the front small and huge on the back, so your name will probably confuse the newbies who came specifically from that email journal's call to action.) Victrix 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take you on your word that Ripper Notes content was used to source much of the article, so I've moved it to References, as you suggest. It would be a lot better if specific articles were cited, rather than the journal as a whole. That could, of course, include articles that aren't offered as online samples as well.

As far as external links to commercial sites go - use common sense. If the site is largely an advertising venue rather than a content repository, then the link shouldn't be there. In my judgment, the RipperNotes site — no matter how prestigious the journal itself — failed that test. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you see

... this, and this, and all Giano's other FARC nominations? Bishonen | ノート 09:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC).

Holy WP:POINT, Batman. Don't try to tell me it's not disruptive, either. I'm surprised nobody's come along and delisted the nominations. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• No one has delisted them because it is not disruptive. Unless you are saying User: Miss Madeline was disruptive for listing Matthew Brettingham as an FARC in the first instance - I merely follow her reasoning, lead and example in an effort ot be a good Wikipedian. It is sad but I have always been easily lead. And of course User: Tony1 agreed with her so is he disruptive roo? All I am endevouring to do is make the habituees of FAC happy people, by making proviso for uniform pages, on uniform subjects, all well documented, like my latest page (kindly footnoted ny ALoan) with an assembly of easily checked facts already for convenience on the internet. No nasty dusty old books which have to be read and borrowed. I shall be feted on the FAC page not told I'm disruptive. Regards as ever Giano | talk 18:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• PS: is it my fault I have written more FAs than most? If it had been most people nominating their single FA no-one would have noticed or made such cruel and wounding accusations. Giano | talk 18:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• PPS Oh dear! look [5] is going to look rather empty, especially when John Vanbrugh has followed as he surely must. Never mind I'm sure Miss Madeline and Tony will soon produce some more multi-referenced abd full of compelling prose.Giano | talk 18:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, it'll still have a lot more than poor old Food and drink. Let me know if you want to have any sort of conversation that isn't veiled in polite sarcasm or irony, Giano, and I'd be happy to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Que? Moi? Sarcasm I notta understandi this word - is it Americano speako? Giano | talk 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. I was beginning to consider putting the "have you seen me" milk pack thing on my user page.. --BorgQueen 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome; I'm glad it didn't come to that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You never got a barnstar, BorgQueen? Ack. Good work righting the wrong, Bunchofgrapes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was very overdue. It was depressing perusing BQ's talk archives to verify she hadn't had any already :-( Now I hope this foray into barnstarring goes better than my only previous attempt... (Yes, I once gave a barnstar to Hollow Wilerding. Nothing to be ashamed of. WikiLove could have helped... yeah, that's it...) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing of Jack the Ripper page

Hello BunchofGrapes

Is it possible to email you privately about editing on the Jack the Ripper page? We have had our attention drawn to a section of UserTalk on Wikipedia <http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Bunchofgrapes> and some remarks addressed to you by a user called "Victrix" concerning the deletion of a link to Ripperologist magazine. As much as we would value a link to our magazine on Wikipedia, whether there is a link or not isn’t a matter of concern to us, but we object to lies being told about us. Can we explain further by e-mail?

ChrisGeorge, for the Ripperologist editorial team

If you go to your preferences ("my preferences" in the upper right of the page) and set up an email address for your Wikipedia account, then an "E-mail this user" link will become available to you in the toolbox over there to the left when you look at my talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Durian-flavoured condom

I think it must have been quite sexy... Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church says using any kind of condom is a sin. :-D --BorgQueen 05:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You'd think there would be an exception for condoms that smell like civet cat, sewage, and used bandages. Someone should write to the Pope. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a sin to use a condom so long as it is not for contraception. Where I come from we use them as useful disposable rain hats and for making salami. What are you doing here [6] BoG don't they run you out of town covered in tar and feathers in Idaho for reading royalist pages and propoganda? Giano | talk 10:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So guilty did I feel at being unable to semi-protect the page per your wishes that it has been on my watchlist ever since. When I saw someone try to edit the article to make it intelligible to someone from Idaho, I leapt into swift and decisive action. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Condoms by Morrhigan.jpg

Here you are - have an award for your Royalist efforts. A good Catholic boy like me has no need for them - it hardly ever rains here, and we've already put the Christmas decorations away. Giano

Eddie's block

I will not unblock someone who has made a persoal attack against me. It's just for an hour anyway. You are free to unblock if you wish, I won't reblock (I don't do wheel wars), although I strongly feel the block was rightly applied. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:02 UTC (2006-03-06)

You ought to leave a message to Eddie that you've unblocked. I do hope that you do not condone what he said, though. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:09 UTC (2006-03-06)

I have unblocked you, Eddie, as I discussed on User talk:NSLE. Accusing NSLE of assuming bad faith regarding yourself is a hair's breadth away from assuming bad faith regarding NSLE himself: watch it. NSLE does not assume bad faith regarding you; I believe he just thinks you have a knack for disruptive editing and show some real immaturaty, as with your recent edits to Eddie. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) I removed that comment, I'm upset because NSLE always catches Me on "bad" edits, and threatens to bring those up if I ever want to RFA. NSLE if You don't like those edits, please delete them, lets forget about them, as You did with Survivor: Exile Island. -- Eddie, Monday March 6 2006 at 05:21

Image copyright problem with Image:Melting_butter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Melting_butter.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 06:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

im not adding nosense

i have made no changes to this site so stop accusiing me. I have not done any vandalism so shut up and leave me alone my parents yelled @ me cuz of u. so plz dont send me any messages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scubaman129 (talk • contribs) 22:19, March 6, 2006 (UTC)

Well, somebody did, last month, under your account name. Look: [7] and [8]. Of course, February 13th was a long time ago, so it's odd to see it brought up now... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)