User talk:YourCousin
UNBLOCK APPEAL[edit]
"
YourCousin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I feel that I have been wrongfully pursued, blocked and with full purpose by User:Chairboy who has even extended the block so that I am not able to vote in an RFA concerning User:Ryulong that ends on August 10th. My vote is being silenced and thwarted. The BOGUS block has been extended by User:Chairboy who happens to be the #2 supporter on the SUPPORT side of the vote. These Wiki-Syndicates are making life miserable for many genuine editors. I appeal to you to revert these bullies and undo my block. I have been attacked repeatedly and I feel that if unblocked, I will be able to fully display that I am an honest and thorough editor. The block was put in place initially because I reverted the work of User:ChicosBailBonds who had placed a non-sourced phoney quote regarding INCEST on the Jeremy Clarkson article. The false INCEST quote has now been removed by other editors and I feel that this exculpates me as a vandal as it is the edit that I have been punished for. It's all in the history. I am not a vandal and I am certainly not a WikiStalker. Thanks for your consideration.
Decline reason:
Well I voted on the oppose side to that RFA, though your activity has certainly made me consider changing to support. No your block evasion and continued personal attacks show no sign of any good fairth on your part.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
"
Pgk, I'm very sorry that you feel that way. I feel like I have had the tables turned on me in a major way. After the conflict with the troublesome edit subsided Ryulong DID wikistalk and harrass me. Some of his comments were made to IP# pages and I cannot directly refer you to any of them really, but you CAN see my responses on Ryulong's talk page. I was cordial with him and he reverted my edit, I tried to open a topic on the Jeremy Clarkson discussion page and he deleted it seven times so that the EDIT in question could not be discussed. This is far from admin material. I'd rather not do block evasion anymore. I have already abandoned the 'war' and I am ready to be a productive editor. Part of the rage that fueled this war was to have a block extended by a week, so that I would miss the end of the vote. Please don't vote SUPPORT for a bully just to get at me, it makes no sense. You only have to look at the histories of HIS talk page, The Jeremy Clarkson article and it's talk page history to see that he will only make life miserable for NEWBIES and people that hold a different opinion to him.
Finally, I respectfully ask that you reconsider my appeal for unblockage. As I have expressed, I would rather cease the block evasion scheme. I am convinced that the #2 supporter extended a one week block fully knowing that it would cause me to miss the end vote. This is crooked. This has only fueled the flames of this fiasco. Thanks again for your consideration.
- Since I'm the guy who extended the block, I assume you're talking about me. Until a few days ago, I didn't know Ryulong from Adam, so there's no "conspiracy of buddies" that's "keeping you down". I became aware of your disruption and edit warring from the RfA, and acted appropriately. If you feel I have not used my administrative powers appropriately or suspect that I'm somehow involved in a concerted effort to oppress you, I encourage you to use the WP:RFC procedures to request community comment on my actions. The edit warring, multiple block evasion, 30+ IPs worth of spamming and more that you embarked on probably deserves much more than a 2 week ban, but it's up to admin discretion. Personally, I'm guessing you'll cool down by the end of the 2 weeks, but if not, there's always extensions. I understand that you're upset by Ryulong, and you have communicated that. The methods you have been using for the past few days are disruptive and completely unacceptable to the running of the project, and I suggest you consider the plan I laid out for your consideration before you blanked this page(here), it's your best bet at coming back in a timely manner. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
PGK and Chairboy, PLEASE LOOK AT THIS[edit]
This is the page where we discussed my first one week block.
I paste the quote in question which is, "when you buy an American car, you must afterwards have sex with your cousin, because that's what [Americans] do.".
Then Ryulong says,"I see no such edits" and "Your reversions seemed pointless".
Well if you look here, you will see that the edit was made and it subsequently became clear that the quote did not exist and the source that Ryulong proved for the quote did not contain any relevant similarities to the quote. It was phoney from the beginning. He is either devious or not very thorough. When I told my version of events on the ADMINISTRATORS NOTICEBOARD he suddenly discovered that the quote was not true and even apologised to me. When his upholding of a phoney INCEST quote began to threaten his RFA, he soon made the page more factual. Ryulong was wrong on all counts and he knew full well what he was doing.
He was more concerned about LOOKING CORRECT than making the page factual and went to great lengths to keep it that way.
Chairboy, If I got it wrong, then I'm sorry. All seems very convenient that's all.
That's the truth. --YourCousin 00:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
One more thing Chairboy[edit]
What doesn't make sense Chairboy is that you ignore everything I have tried to convey to you. I have proved the Ryulong is a liar and a cheat. It's in the histories you can;t miss it. He deleted my discussion topic seven times, then had had me blocked for personal attacks..., it was total bull$hit.. then said "IM LAUGHING OUT LOUD". And you are his #2 supporter. I have given you links to the histories...all you have to do is click on em and there lies the truth,,... and you are his #2 supporter. It makes little sense. What Ryulong did and does is worse than any naughty words.
Try READING the bit above. --YourCousin 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- You know, in the face of your widescale attack, it doesn't really matter. I'm getting the impression that you don't understand that, but your large disruption of the project is 100x more important that the personal slight you feel you incurred by something he said. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
For the 28468724th time. He is a liar, a cheat and a bully. You must know this by now the amount of times I have provided you with simple links to the histories.
I can only assume that you are ignoring this on purpose as you ARE the #2 supporter and as I have pointed out, the one that suspended me an extra week, so that I would miss the end vote. I did the math. The end of the voting happens around 3 hours after my ban expired and you extended it a week.
I am now convinced that you are a blind supporter for Ryulong and that this is why you ignore my proof of his being the world's worst canididate for admin. I am convinced that anyone reading this will feel the same way about you.
You keep trying to say that I'm upset by the way he spoke to me. That's fine. You can look the other way and support a crooked nominee. You obviously have your reasons.
Thanks for your input.
--YourCousin 01:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, and like I mentioned earlier, I welcome you to make use of the RfC process. The WP:Request for Comment is a tool that will get the exact community feedback that you feel is needed on my actions. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance to you. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You can indeed be of assistance to me and anyone else reading this by acknowledging that I have sent you undeniable proof that the User:Ryulong who is up for nomination, has lied, abused the system, deleted discussion topics that he didn't want to be discussed and generally ruins the Wiki-experience.
I have mentioned these histories in every message to you you and like a CROOKED politician, you speak around them and never mention them in your responses.
It's very telling as you ARE the #2 supporter of his RFA and you are also the person who extended my block for a week so that I would miss the end of the vote. My original block was to end 3 hours before the end of the vote.
It's all very, very convenient.
Can you acknowledge that? Or do we get another political answer where you say anything but the fact that you are supporting a crooked nominee with full purpose? You are the #2 supporter. you were in there quick.
It's painfully obvious what you are doing. Your silence in your blind support for a proven liar and abuser of the system speaks volumes. It's not my opinon. It's all over this page in black and white. --YourCousin 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the text color in my browser is different because I configured it that way. I met Ryulung a day before his RfA because I disagreed with him on something, then I changed my mind. It's a happy coincidence that I found his RfA, I was just lucky to be an early supporter, I suppose. You shouldn't worry too much, it doesn't look like it's gonna pass, but I've got to tell you that you sound just a little paranoid. There's no jerrymandering, no vote stacking against you, or anything else like that that I'm involved with. You disrupted the project, and I extended your block appropriately. Please, I implore you to create an RfC criticizing my actions if you feel you have been wronged. If you are willing to accept the opinion of the community on this matter, we can resolve this painlessly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You see now I would consider your sarcasm a form of personal attack and suggest that you are admin that escalates situations because you don't know what to do.
I have asked you to acknowledge that you are the #2 RFA supporter for Ryulong and that you also have the ability to click on the histories that I have supplied you with that substantiate my version of event sproving that you are voting for a liar and cheat.
You have ignored this request and refuse to mention my sentiment in any capacity and I therefore no longer require a response from you.
You can pretend that I look paranoid, but at least I can back up my claims with abundant proof. It might not get me anywhere, but I'm not dishonest or devious like you have been on this page.
--YourCousin 01:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the basic misunderstanding here on your part is that my extension of your block has nothing to do with the Jeremy Clarkson edits, it was because of your block evasion, a block that looks solid. Your continued disruption and "declaration of war" against Wikipedia since then has not improved matters. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have never once said that my block extension has anything to do with the Jeremy Clarkson edits as you and everyone reading this page can see in BLACK AND WHITE above. It is a smoke screen on your part and a very limp one at that.
I have suggested, with abundant clarity I might add, that the block extension was a strategic move on the part of you, Ryulong's #2 RFA supporter and that the strategy was to make me miss the end of the vote which happens 3 hours after my original block ends.
Claiming that I have declared war on Wikipedia is also a very silly notion and a limp attempt at another smoke screen. It is clear to everyone and anyone that I have had a problem with Ryulong and nothing else.
It is now painfully obvious what you are doing.
Really, I no longer require a response from you. I do not trust you. You have proven your deviousity above and through your blatant abuse of your powers.
Thanks--YourCousin 02:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Your block extension had nothing whatsoever to do with any window you might have had to comment on the RfA. Is that clear enough? The block extension came because you were disrupting the RfA through block evasion. I announced what I did on the appropriate thread on WP:AN/I. Also, I have had one interaction with Ryulong, and only one. There is no conspiracy to keep you from "voting". Please remain WP:CIVIL, accusing me of plotting against you, calling me a liar and whatnot isn't appropriate, and I believe that my actions are perfectly appropriate. BTW, the reason I am the "#2 supporter" on the RfA is because I have WP:RFA on my watchlist and saw it added. You have stated that you do not "trust" me, but trust is not required, just go through my edit history and you can see the story for yourself. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This is what Ryulong does. You ask him to leave you alone and he keeps coming back and coming back and coming back... with more debate,,... more rebuttals... reasons... excuses... then the sarcasm.. the windups.. then the blocks...
Why don't you just go away? I do not trust you. You have proven yourself to be dishonest and I do not wish to hear from you anymore. You are stinking up my page with your paranoia and constant messaging.
I've also noticed that you are debating the OPPOSE voters... that is unethical. You need to clean up your act, but more than anything, I DO NOT REQUIRE A RESPONSE FROM YOU ANYMORE, I DO NOT APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO GET A RISE OUT OF ME. I HAVE ASKED YOU TO STOP MESSAGING ME FOUR TIMES IN A ROW. I AM NOT PERSONALLY ATTACKING YOU AND SIMPLY DO NOT NEED TO HEAR YOUR SENTIMENT ANYMORE. IT IS GETTING US NOWHERE. NOW GO AWAY!
If you want to do something useful, why not strike off that number 48 SUPPORT that turned into number 7 Neutral. The 48 withthe line through it is still being counted as a support. He has clearly switched.
I have asked you to leave me alone 4 times and you keep returning. This constitutes a personal attack and vandalism of my page. We have no business. We have nothing to talk about. You are just harassing me. Go away. --YourCousin 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- A few things:
- Since you're accusing me of something, it's not really in my best interest to "go away", especially if you're misrepresenting me and my actions.
- You refer to my paranoia, but you're the guy who thinks that there's a conspiracy against you (specifically, you keep suggesting that I'm somehow "in league" with Ryulong). I didn't know the guy at all until just before the RfA, and don't really know him any better now.
- As one of the administrators who has become involved in your case, it would be inappropriate for me to just "leave", whether you want me to or not.
- You have made repeated personal attacks against me, but I'm not interested in being punitive. I would like to ask you to please stop. Accusing me of lying is really not cool, if you feel that it's accurate I ask you to provide a link to an appropriate diff. I've been trying to help you, and this is still your best bet for recovery. If you continue to be incivil, to disrupt Wikipedia from 30+ IPs, evade blocks, and make personal attacks, the community will do what any immune system would in the same situation. The choice remains yours, I hope you will reconsider your approach. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
THIS ADMIN IS BLATANTLY TRYING TO GET A RISE OUT OF ME.
I AM BEING STALKED AND WIKI-BULLIED! I HAVE ASKED THIS PERSON TO GET OFF OF MY PAGE 5 TIMES AND SHE/HE KEEPS RETURING WITH MORE INFLAMMATORY BANTER. BECAUSE I HAVE MENTIONED THIS ADMIN IN MY UNBLOCK APPEAL BELOW, I AM BEING SEVERELY HARRASSED. THIS ADMIN IS DOING NOTHING ELSE WITH THEIR EVENING BUT MONITORING THIS PAGE AND HARRASSING ME!
IF SOMEONE IS READING THIS WOULD YOU PLEASE HAVE A WORD WITH THIS TROUBLEMAKER!!
NOW GO AWAY YOU TROUBLEMAKER!! YOU NEARLY HAVE A RISE OUT OF ME! I HAVE NOT READ YOUR LITTLE NUMBERED LIST!
YOU HAD A CHANCE WITH ME EARLIER, NOW I CAN ONLY PUBLICISE YOUR BULLYING!!
LEAVE ME ALONE!!
--YourCousin 02:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
(IF YOU HAVE COME HERE TO HELP, PLEASE REALISE THAT I AM BLOCKED HERE AND CANNOT EDIT ANY OTHER PAGES THAN THIS ONE)
PLEASE HAVE A LOOK AT CHAIRBOY'S CONTRIBS - HE HAS DONE NOTHING BUT FERVENTLY WATCH THIS PAGE FOR THE PAST 2 HOURS AND 25 MINUTES!!! THAT'S LONGER THAN STAR WARS!!
THIS IS THE SAME GUY THAT IS MENTIONED IN THE UNBLOCK APPEAL BELOW!! HEEEEELP!!
SOMEONE PLEASE HAVE A WORD WITH THIS CROOKED ANTAGONIST!!--YourCousin 02:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
NOW THAT I HAVE APPEALED FOR HELP AND POINTED AT HIS HARASSING AND STALKING CONTRIBS HE HAS JUST BEEN TO THE ADMIN NOTICEBOARD AT 02:56, 7 August 2006 AND TYPED THIS:
"Status update - The user in question is requesting an unblock (I recommend against it, obviously) and feels that I am stalking him. Please review the conversation at User_talk:YourCousin to review his unblock request and review my conduct. He seems to feel that I am part of a conspiracy and that I am bullying him. I don't think that's the case, but I welcome outside scrutiny, especially if any of you would be willing to address some of his concerns as he does not appear to hold my words in any type of regard at the moment. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)"
He knows that I cannot defend myself on that page becuase he has me blocked here!
SOMEONE PLEASE HAVE A WORD WITH THIS CROOKED ANTAGONIST!!
HEEEELLLLLLP!!!
--YourCousin 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hello! Just trying to get attention to your case. If I have acted inappropriately, then the more visibility the better. Hope it helps. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
For a 6th time, I no longer require responses from you and consider each one to be a unique PERSONAL ATTACK.
LEAVE ME ALONE!--YourCousin 03:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
THE CHAP ABOVE, CHAIRBOY HAS BEEN HARRASING ME AND THREATENED ME WITH ANOTHER BLOCK EXTENSION FOR REFERRING TO HIM AS DISHONEST. IN AN EFFORT TO DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM RYULONG, HE STATES THAT:
"I have had one interaction with Ryulong, and only one."
(It's right here on this page above)
Ryulong is the RFA nominee mentioned in my UNBLOCK APPEAL... well I count 4 interactions which can be seen here:
(The first 2 are tips from Chairboy to Ruylong on how to impress the voters)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=67539786
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=67538881
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=67482782
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=67316186
And also an additional 5, yes FIVE EDITS TO THE Ryulong RFA page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=67668248 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=67520409 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=67517554 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=67517476 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=67507651
THAT IS 9 INTERACTIONS. NOT 1.
He has made 16 edits to this page this evening, nearly the same amount as he made during the entire previous 3 days. He made only 3 yesterday for instance! A very keen interest in keeping me blocked I would say!!
This ADMIN IS DISHONEST!!
PLEASE DON'T LET THIS CROOKED ADMIN SILENCE MY VOTE - THIS IS NOT RIGHT!
Thanks--YourCousin 03:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, I had meant to say that I had had only 1 interaction with him before the RfA, but you're right, I've spoken with him a few times since suggesting that he stop editing his RfA so much. Again, though, I must ask you to stop making personal attacks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ha. Don't be silly.
You said that you were going to suspend me for saying that you were dishonest.
You said, "you keep suggesting that I'm somehow "in league" with Ryulong" and then you said, "I have had one interaction with Ryulong, and only one." and then you said, "Accusing me of lying is really not cool" and then you said, "just go through my edit history and you can see the story for yourself" and then you said "if you feel that it's accurate I ask you to provide a link to an appropriate diff"...
So I did... and found out that you are a total liar (FACT NOT HEARSAY OR PERSONAL ATTACK). I do not accept that you forgot about 9 edits to and for Ryulong. The notion is silly. Not only was it 9 INTERACTIONS instead of 1, but 2 of the 9, this one and that one were actually GROOMING TIPS ON HOW TO IMPRESS THE VOTERS! Unbelievable!
The other notion that you keep repeating and repeating is that I am uncivil and that I have personally attacked you on this page. LIAR is not an adjective. I have tried SO hard not to call you a name for this incessant debating which you haven't been so good at! SO you keep hinting that you're going to extend my block for personal attacks but there have been none.
I took the "PROVE I'M A LIAR" challenge and you got burned.
Now GO AWAY!
--YourCousin 04:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
YourCousin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked by the #2 supporter of an RFA nominee that is losing his RFA. The supporters knew how I intended to vote and the chap above, Chairboy, extended my block by a week. The original block was due to expire around 3 hours before the end of this particular vote. I am disgusted by the conduct of these crooked administrators and the ease with which their syndicates operate. Chairboy is Ryulong's #2 supporter on the RFA vote page. Please read above where he avoids the issue of suspending me for political purposes, refusing to even mention it. Please do not allow these cheats to censor my vote! Please help. thanks for your consideration. --YourCousin 01:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As above, No.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Help me[edit]
The help me template is to alert users for questions regarding editing and content, the encyclopedic sides of the argument. Please don't use the template to draw attention to community problems; the Administrator's Noticeboard is a more proper place to look for help. Thanks for contributing, Teke 03:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- YourChoir, I am not going to get involved in your dispute with Choirboy; it's not near my concern. I am not an administrator, so I can do nothing about your block. If I were and I could, I would do nothing about your block. Administrators try their best to not step on each others toes, to avoid a Wheel war. My advice to you is to get a good nights rest and cool off, come back fresh after the block :) Best of luck to you, Teke 03:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Helpme[edit]
As the two messages (which you have removed) said, the {{helpme}} template is for use by newcomers to get help with basic editing, and they are generally not dealt with by administrators. If you continue to abuse the {{helpme}} template in this fashion, you will lose the privilege of editing your user talk page. Please wait for your {{unblock}} request to be processed; it is more than adequate to receive help on blocks. Thanks, Tangotango 04:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The very first thing I have said is that I CANNOT EDIT ANY PAGES THAN THIS ONE! I appreciate your interest, but reasing a little of the page would have been a great help.
This issue is about Chairboy, a chap that is trying to rig an RFA vote here. He seems to be in cahoots with some other crooked admin/editors as you can see I have PROVED above.
All those links you see are an example of what I'm dealing with.
Just read the UNBLOCK APPEAL at the bottom of the page.
I'm sorry, but the LEAVE A MESSAGE ON THE ADMIN NOTICEBOARD won't help me. These guys have silenced me.
That's it...
Read some of the page please!!
--YourCousin 04:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't do it[edit]
Stopsending the personal attacks and you'll be unblocked...possibly.----Always Gotta Keep It Real, Cute 1 4 u 04:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Cute 1 4 u - U r on it Gerrrl! Yee ha! dam! shaz bam!! jamoney!
Why you dissin da wrong side a da table dow? wassup den? wassup wid dat yo? my mama didnt raise no foo! aint u even gon lay yo eyes on my side of the stride? dam woman!
i am bein jumped here by jive talkin cheatin chumps!
why yo buns aint stickin up fo a brotha!
c ya on da fubazzle
--YourCousin 04:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
dagammit woman! I'm year of the boar too!
come on now!
get down wid yo bad self!!
--YourCousin 04:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Double diggity flappity flap jacks!!
Ryulong told you to GET OFF Wikipedia and you're not voting?
Daaang!
--YourCousin 04:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked indef[edit]
I blocked you indef for repeating attacks, disruption and sockpupperty. Jaranda wat's sup 05:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I endorse this block, this user does not seem interested in constructive contributing. ++Lar: t/c 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have proved above that one of your ADMIN is a liar and that he is RIGGING the RFA vote. I have proved beyond a doubt that this is the case. Fo you to come here and indefinitely extend my block shows that you have not read any of my sentiment and you are more intent on flexing your punitive tools.
This BLOCK stems from an edit conflict wher I reverted something that has since been proven to be a FALSE QUOTE with a PHONEY source. I have made the article more FACTUAL with my persistence. This is why all this has happened. Over zealous ego-maniacal editors have had me blocked for bogus reasons.
It is bothering that the editors seem so intent on flexing their punitive tools rather than actually looking into the claims of someone who is probably agitated rather than being a genuine vandal.
Thanks for your interest in my plea anyway.
If you're not a blind supporter of my opposition then look up above where I EASILY prove that ADMIN "Chairboy" has been having an ongoing relationship with Ryulong afetr he claimed thet they only had 'ONE' interaction.
He is a liar. He is playing with the votes. He is the #2 supporter. I proved it. You have ignored it.
Thanks--YourCousin 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Page has been protected[edit]
This page has been protected because user YourCousin cannot remain civil and coherent, and continues to make inflammatory attacking comments with incivil edit summaries. I invite review of this action at the ongoing ANI thread ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)