User talk:Rangoon11/Archive 5
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Rangoon!!! Well done on getting one of may many!!!! acounts blocked, i have over 50 operating, so think youve got me, im now thinking more long term, operating a set of sleepers with no spam under a seperate VPN connection!!, over come time, they will launch an attack against the biggest prize, removing Rangoon11 from wikipedia, and changing the g5 article. I think I will begin my next round of attacks later this week. I cant see why you keep trying to get me blocked, all i have to do is press new account, via a vpn a dont use for editing, so i can always evade and duck under any block!! Anyway, youre right, i do have an account i do my proper editing from, but use the socks to hit at people. Ive been succesful with many people, but i suppose i hardly ever use wiki, you seem to use it 24 hours a day!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnalnifa (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to remove the above comment, but unfortunatly it wont let me as it says it is unconstructuve, sorry about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.232 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- You're a little late for that, Edinburghgeo. If you seriously want to take us all on, then bring it. It is all of us against you, and you will lose. --MuZemike 19:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
February 2012
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 01:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
About Tata beverages
About HeidelbergCement, I don't have any problem since building material or construction material are almost same. But in Tata beverages you've actual put that its a FMCG. I'm literally confused, what it should be I have to consult other editors. In the mean time let it remain NAB. Thanks!--Kkm010* ۩ ۞ 15:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, let's consult other editors and have a discussion on the Talk page. What constitutes an 'industry' is a highly subjective matter however, I think that actually the most common industry label for this company would be 'Fast-moving consumer goods'. To try to impose a change from 'Non-alcoholic beverages' to simply 'Beverages' is unconstructive and pointless however -'Non-alcohol beverages' is altogether clearer.
- In the meantime please leave the text as the stable version prior to the edit warring. It is not acceptable for you to seek to impose a change through repeated edit-warring, particularly a change of this nature. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note that there is no single correct version of English worldwide, and please stop edit-warring to change HeidelbergCement to your preferred choice. "Building materials" and "Construction materials" are both perfectly acceptable, and are used interchangeable by different sources. Also at http://www.forbes.com/companies/heidelbergcement/ , the company is described as being in the "Construction Materials" industry. At WP:ENGVAR it suggests leaving articles at the original variant, or using the variant more applicable to the relevant place in the world - you should leave this as it originally was. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Before posting this message perhaps you could have taken the time to actually look at the edit history of the article, in which you would have seen that 'Building materials' rather than 'Construction materials' was the original stable wording, and that another editor has actually been attempting to impose a change thorugh edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- You have my apologies! I did look back (or at least I thought I did), and I thought I'd seen it stable at "construction" - but I clearly did something careless there and got it wrong. I'll leave it to the rest of you to decide, but I'd just suggest that all of the involved editors take into account a number of things - what reliable sources say, WP:ENGVAR, and ultimately consensus, and talk it out and try to reach an agreement on the Talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
World Factoring Yearbook
I'm leaving this message as you're listed as a current participant of WikiProject Business. I was informed yesterday that the current World Factoring Yearbook (circa £150) is now free for download as an ebook. It's a matter of filling out this form. I'm not sure if you'll find this useful as a reliable source, but I thought I should let you know that it's freely available online. I apologise in advance if this doesn't interest you! All the best, The Cavalry (Message me) 15:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement
Hello User:Rangoon11. Sometime ago you expressed interest in my proposal for an Occupy movement project on Wikipedia.[1] A formal proposal has been made at the project council proposal page. If you are still interested you may add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Occupy movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Turbomeca logo.png
Thank you for uploading File:Turbomeca logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Columbo
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Columbo, List of Columbo episodes". Thank you.
February 2012 Columbo
Whilst I know you feel strongly about this, if you revert again as here[2] I will take this diff and others to the DRN and report your obvious edit warring. You are not discussing this on the talk page and you are clearly not willing to cooperate in the improvement of the article.--Djathinkimacowboy 03:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Mediation Case opening
Hello! Per the discussion at DRN, I have opened a Mediation Cabal case here. All discussion will take place on the case's talk page. Please read over the ground rules on the talk page, found here and put your sig below in the indicated spot. After that, and after you have watchlisted the page, please post a short statement in the section below 'Ground Rules' which describes your side of the dispute and what resolution you wish to see.
I look forward to working with you both. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Rangoon. Your edit here shows you are already in defiance of what the admin asked us: not to edit Columbo until mediation is concluded. You show your true colours. I wish you'd just cooperate, you aren't helping the article anyway.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Two things. I am not an admin. I'm just an editor with experience in mediation cases who thinks I can be of huge service to resolving this dispute fairly and equitably. Nevertheless, I do think it would be a good first step for Rangoon to sign the Ground Rules for mediation and to stop editing the page in question. Also, Dyjathinkimacowboy, please keep comments on the mediation page; we don't want to expand a discussion onto talk pages of users, that tends to get heated quickly. Lord Roem (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Columbo question
Rangoon, where are we on this[3]? Are we going to look at a table, do you want to try to design one, or do we stick to the simple and better-looking text version? I respect your opinion and views. Since we seem to have no mediator, and some of my posted information was deleted by her before she disappeared for the weekend, I'd like to have your thoughts on this. In general, I would go along with a simple table arranged neatly in rows and columns.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for this, I was actually going to propose doing as you suggest and preparing a draft table for discussion, minus some of the detail which we have agreed to lose and the duplicated DVD info. I will aim to post one up on the mediation page during the course of tomorrow.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard incident
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Orphaned non-free image File:Roewe logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Roewe logo.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. Skier Dude (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Question...
Hey, long time no see. I guess you haven't made it over to WP:WikiProject Cooperation, which is doing some really good work.
I saw you cleaned up the BP article and took out the 2009 helicopter crash. Any reason you think it doesn't belong?
Hope you're doing well, cheers. Ocaasi t | c 17:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for your message. I'm well thanks and hope you are, too. I have been intending to check the project out - I think it's a really good idea - but haven't managed it yet. Will make an effort to do so soon.
- On the crash, essentially it was a helicopter owned and operated by another company and I don't see how it demonstrates anything regarding BP's safety record (just like if its employees were on a business trip on a Delta airlines plane which crashed). I should add that the whole bottom third of that article is in need of drastic surgery. It looks like any negative thing which has happened which could be associated with BP in any way was added to the article at the time of the Deepwater accident, and the article has been left difigured as a result. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Redirect of Occupy stubs
- this redirect (one of a series) requires proper discussion
Why does a merge and redirect of a small stub article into a larger parent article require proper discussion? Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fine to do one boldly, not a series all at once which are about a highly controversial subject.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- What's controversial about merging and redirecting a 906 byte stub that has no hope of expansion?[4] Have you read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- You haven't done one, you have done a large number. Can we please continue this on the Talk page of Occupy movement in the United States, where a discussion is ongoing. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- The majority of these articles are stubs. What possible argument could there be for keeping these in separate articles? Best practice is to merge small stubs into larger articles. And when you do that, and you remove the spam and repetitive statements, you'll have a standard sized article on the subject. I don't see any benefit to keeping small stubs on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- You haven't done one, you have done a large number. Can we please continue this on the Talk page of Occupy movement in the United States, where a discussion is ongoing. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- What's controversial about merging and redirecting a 906 byte stub that has no hope of expansion?[4] Have you read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Korean barbecue smackface
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Hey, keep it light-hearted today. Don't make everything personal or take it personal. Try to have fun and interact patiently with those of us Wikipedians who only edit because it's fun & addicting. Sorry about reverting you--I wasn't trying a disrespect on you, I was just trying to demonstrate a show of support on Viriditas & help lighten the tension between you and Viriditas. Anyways, happy editing and thanks for your work on the occupy articles, which makes you a part of the movement. :^^ 완젬스 (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. I didn't take it personally, I just found it puzzling, but no hard feelings! Hopefully we can find a solution which works for most people, I think there is general agreement that some of the articles should be merged, the main question is how many.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It is my honoured pleasure:
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For your perfection of a Columbo complete series table. It is masterful and I think it will be copied for generations, by everyone. —Djathinkimacowboy 13:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks I appreciate that! I think we are now making real progress. Hopefully we can do Falk proud.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. When you recently edited Mini (marque), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HIF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rangoon11, I haven't been around irc much lately but I'm sure you're cranking away. :)
I just finished a massive draft on our own very topical subject of paid editing on Wikipedia. I would love your careful assessment in checking it for neutrality, formatting, organization, reference detail, etc. I hope you can take a quick look. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 12:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, yes happy to look at this. I will aim to do it either today (hopefully) or tomorrow. For ease, would it be OK if I make my comments in the form of actually editing the document? You can then revert them (and I wont take offence at this - it is not an article but your own text and up to you how it is written) but I think it will be the much easiest way to show my comments, rather than writing out a long piece of prose saying 'I would change .... in line .... of para... to ....." etc.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Mini
All I did was improvise, and I did not receive a point for your revert.
The image is better because it shows the standard Cooper S Hatch. And the CLubman image is better from rear because it looks like a normal Hatch from the front. And also, there's no information about the variants is there? --Chacha15 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Chacha15, you both need to stop. Go to Talk:Mini (marque) and discuss. No more reverts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- The edits were reverted for good reasons. I'm very happy to discuss them, however I'm not willing to allow changes to be imposed through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- WP:3RRNO lists exceptions to the three revert rule, and those exceptions do not apply here. The edits in question were not vandalism, libel, copyright violations, etc, and so you must allow such changes, no matter how much it annoys you, rather than violate 3RR. Saying it was for "good reasons" is not sufficient to keep you from being blocked. Use the talk page, and report editors who are edit warring, ask for third opinions, but do not perpetuate the edit war. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- The edits were reverted for good reasons. I'm very happy to discuss them, however I'm not willing to allow changes to be imposed through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Perkins logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Perkins logo.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. Skier Dude (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Columbo table
Rangoon, just wondering about the table here[5]. It is excellent and I believe it's something we ought to now set aside to go into the article as-is, if you do not object. Also, I bring to your attention the interference of User:B3430715 who, in my opinion, should not be allowed to participate in an 'invisible' fashion. He should sign on or move on .... —Djathinkimacowboy 19:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I agree the table should go in. Would you like to do it or should I? Not sure where B3430715 has suddenly come from, and their comment was somewhat odd. Let's see if they post again.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I was late to reply. I could put the table in easily today, if you like. I already copied it onto my user page! as to that other editor, I think he's just trying to help but I don't think he's going to take the time to join in any real way. Just likes to cause mild irritations. —Djathinkimacowboy 16:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Have you seeb what B. put at the mediation lately? (sigh) R., I'm not sure I ought to put the table in without your guidance. I'm not sure which table to replace, and we haven't yet agreed to the rest of the work we'll be doing. Perhaps you should put the table in. Did you notice on the article that a couple of editors have been editing away? It's mostly good, but they are reinserting stuff you and I agreed was WP:TRIVIA. You should answer me on my talk page so I can attend to your reply right away, cheers.—Djathinkimacowboy 16:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I was late to reply. I could put the table in easily today, if you like. I already copied it onto my user page! as to that other editor, I think he's just trying to help but I don't think he's going to take the time to join in any real way. Just likes to cause mild irritations. —Djathinkimacowboy 16:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Personal message
Rangoon, I am taking a break from all this Columbo crap. Just wanted you to keep an eye on both editors, B with the numbers after it and a new one called Detectiveboy. They are causing some trouble and it's just begun!—Djathinkimacowboy 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, I will try to keep an eye on it. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I need your assistance in developing and spreading a wikiproject. Can you help me in developing and spreading this page in wikipedia: Wikipedia:Wikipedia for World Heritage
Thank you and Happy editing Yasht101 :) 06:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Merge
See Talk:Mini (marque). What do you think? --Chacha15 (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Broad & Bright logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Broad & Bright logo.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Columbo other concern
Rangoon, I wanted you to see the warning post I have placed on user talk:detectiveboy so you can have a record for yourself. You may feel free to delete this after you have read it but please consult the diffs and look at this potential problem. QUOTE: 'Your posts[8] are being ignored. This other disruptiveness[9], [10] is not helping. I know you understand English well enough to know about catchphrases and "the wife". You also know Link and Levinson are not the only sources we can use. Since you have been relatively nice and haven't edited the article in any great capacity, I am asking you nicely to contribute and stop disrupting the talk page. Either way, you are going to be ignored.'—Djathinkimacowboy 21:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Your Royal Dutch Shell reverts
Twice I have made a good faith edit to the lede of this article. Twice you have reverted it, saying potahto to my potato. I'm going to restore the edit; it's not your proprietary article. Let's not see a third revert on this. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the edit I have just restored is not the original, it is the revised one. I tried to plumb what your objection might be and meet somewhere in the middle. To me it reads clearer as revised. Is this really worth your waging an edit war? Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The existing wording is in my view better, if you really want to make these (wholly pointless) changes then please start a discussion on the article talk page, don't come to my talk page telling me you are going to edit war to try to impose the change. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The edit war is yours. I made the edit, I intend to stick by it. If you wish otherwise, proceed. Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- A few points. Firstly I never doubted that your edit was good faith, and I only needed to take a quick look at your editing history to confirm this view. Secondly, I don't think that your proposed edit is especially bad, I just think that the existing and longstanding wording is better. I accept that this is subjective but it is my good faith view and it is unlikely to change. Thirdly, it would be good if you could understand that my reversion is good faith in the same way that your attempted change is. I have made a lot of edits to the Shell article but I do not revert other editors good faith changes just for the sake of it, only when I genuinely think them not an improvement. For example, I did not revert your other change to the article - I agreed with it. Fourthly, if you really want to make this change, please take it the article talk page to seek consensus. Finally, the Shell article, although much improved from 2 years ago, requires a lot more work. I would be very happy to work together on developing the article. The operations section in particular needs an almost complete re-write. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- The edit war is yours. I made the edit, I intend to stick by it. If you wish otherwise, proceed. Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Clearly you are way too attached to the article, "owning it". Why is your "good faith" superior to mine? If I made an edit, and I am a consciencious (and capable) editor with the better part of something like 98% of over 10,000 Wikipedia "contributions" being copyedits to articles (rather than adding new content, gussying up my Talk page or yakking at others', etc.), why doesn't it stand? Why does your reversion of it - clearly a "You say potato, I say potahto" preference - trump mine? Am I not entitled to make a good faith "style" edit and have it stand on that merit? Anywhere else I am.
Simply, I disagree, and feel I have a valid case to insist my original edit stand. If you want to take the issue to Talk and see if you can develop a consensus around changing it back to your preference, that is your perogative. So this issue should go. But as it is I've spent way more time and energy in this back and forth bicker than it is remotely worth to me. Have it your way. You're not right, you've just worn me down.
I do, however, appreciate your civil tone and offer to edit elsewhere in the article. I'm sure you can understand that at this point I'll take a bye. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Apology
Well, in light of everything I owe you an apology for my posted comment, at the Shell talk page. Hopefully you'll accept it. That will not happen again.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Columbo Episodes
- Why have you restored the wrong&inaccurate info here? Have you first read over that?B3430715 (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- The table is correct and was discussed at length during a recent mediation. The addition of a second DVD table is also unnecessary and messy.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Look, what is wrong is wrong. What do you mean by "Universal Studios Home Entertainment is continually releasing new episodes of Columbo on DVD." and why do yo need a table which tells you when exact date it was first broadcast? And it has nothing to do with the mediation since only few people participated. B3430715 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- The table is correct and was discussed at length during a recent mediation. The addition of a second DVD table is also unnecessary and messy.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Columbo video headngs
Rangoon, I received yr. mssg:
A minor point but I really feel that the heading should for correctness be 'Episodes and home video release', as Home video is the standard wording to cover all pre-recorded media formats for home use (in both American and British English), whilst 'video' is somewhat ambiguous and can cover a variety of other formats/useages.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
and I agree with you. We'll leave it as 'home video' for exactness. Cheers—Djathinkimacowboy 02:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
As long as you will answer B3 and play his games at the talk page, I am not participating there. And I certainly am not going to be accused by that fool of being disruptive just because he doesn't like what I have to say. I'm sick of this, Rangoon. You deal with him all you like. If he accuses me of disruption again, I'll take action.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's up to you, but do ask yourself who starts this disruption today and who's here threatening everyone. B3430715 (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- No: it's up to you, B3. I am NOT disrupting anything and I am not threatening "everyone". I'm threatening you. You've been warned. By more than one person. If I were you I'd think about this a bit.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |