User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 36

A pleasant conversation
Anybody that reads this (from the archive), is in for a big shock. It was on 3 July 2012, which was two weeks ago. I ask for comments as to how this lovely conversation could have taken place, at all, ever.--andreasegde (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find with pretty much everything I say, You have to give an explanation which 'a cat could understand', although even then it doesn't always work. So can you give a summary for 'the rest of us' about what is going on here ? Penyulap  ☏  22:43, 16 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * GabeMc has been extremely industrious regarding this case against myself, making accusations that I bullied him for two years, as well as numerous other charges, but looking at the conversation that took place only two weeks ago clearly shows that almost everything he has accused me of is a falsehood.--andreasegde (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * GabeMc has demanded I stay off his user page for a comment I posted incorrectly. I did apologize but he is alienating everybody. Too wound up, he is. The guy has such dedication potential too. I guess this means in future edit disputes WP:Collaboration won't be happening for background issues best kept off the article talk (public) pages. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why am I still here?
I have been accused of "driving editors away, personal attacks, disruptive editing, being a sock puppet, being extremely unpleasant, disruptive, hostile and deliberately off-putting, wikihounding/wikistalking, ownership of articles, hostility and threats, provoking arguments, blatant personal attacks, gratuitous incivility, acting like a petulant child, "screaming and stamping his feet when things don't go his way", satiric replies, jealousy: "A feels envious that G has got an article to featured article status", and of being a bully: "I've watched Andreasegde bully myself and others for over 2 years!" (The last one by GabeMc, among others). The new ones below: "throwing personal attacks, refusing to answer, not observing some basic forms of respect, an extremely abusive stance, a highly unwelcoming editing style, continued abuse, hostility, threats, mean-spirited sarcasm and bluster, and long-term needling". Taking all these into account, I should have been reported at ANI every single week over the last six years. Why wasn't I?

It's simple. If you throw enough 'mud' at the wall, some of it might stick. This is not about editorial disagreements, it's politics.--andreasegde (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because GabeMc can't spell your name correctly for real??? He constantly spells your name incorrectly and we all thought it was just to be WP:Disruptive by being annoying in so many posts, but perhaps he really cannot spell it correctly and nobody else can figure out who he is complaining about. He just refers to me as the "IP sock" or some other presumptious term. I hope he get blessed for this behaviour. It wil mean we can all act like jerks, after his example. Not a good thing but hey it works on many of the forums. Oh Wait... Most of them have closed up now. hmmmm... 99.251.125.65 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps his use of cut and paste while canvassing editors demonstrates clear intention to insult here, rather than a lack of skill. Cutting and pasting one word is harder than a slab of text ? I don't think so. But I'm happy to see who backs that opinion, and put them on my facepalm list. Penyulap  ☏  23:26, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure some mud sticks, but the circus, I mean the thing with mob mentality when it dresses up as a courtroom is the hilarity of the situations it creates. Reminds me of kids dressing up their cat and dog for a wedding, but you wouldn't miss it for the world. Anyhow, I just came to make it clear to any stalkers that my hand crafted Grumpy award is an award, and properly bestowed, even if there was critique given at the same time. Of course the minor thing I mentioned at the time was just an observation of what other people might think, where the primary purpose was the expression of respect and camaraderie. That is the purpose of an award, and I don't make 'negative' stuff. Like PenGreen, there is no PenRed, because it's negative, and while I'm happy to accept sockpuppets of my 'enemies'/critics giving me awards, hey thanks ! I don't give bad people awards. Ever.


 * (yeah so with the groom all dressed up and the bow tie just right, camera ready ? wait, whoops the bride is licking eerr, ewww) yeah, that is the problem with ANI, the endless attempt to make it something it just cannot be, or, in the hitch-hiker's quote I re-crafted


 * So really, it's back to ANI to see if we can get any two editors to walk down the aisle this time. You know you love this place Andreasegde. Penyulap  ☏  03:08, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * Wonders never cease. I find it interesting that the editors who can hold and process all the conversations at once, vs the editors who cannot see past the end of their nose, comes out in such a strange fashion. Obviously the project itself is on the side of the hold and process, because the project keeps record of everything and so do we. It's all there, it's written and accessible at all times. But on the other hand the circus is running the place, and there is no respect for the written, verifiable, history. I would have to examine the analogy between the verifiable scientific reality and the manner in which an alternate fabrication is upheld. this would change anyone forever with a single viewing, altering the nature of their reality using scientific provable and verifiable fact, and yet the opposite baseless fact-less delusion is the one upheld. However while I can see how the offence to reason is created and upheld on wikipedia, I can't yet fathom it's purpose. I expect by tomorrow I'll dismiss it as pareidolic concern, and remember this place is animal farm, lord of the flies, the house full of party crashers where Jimbo has kindly signed over the deed to the house to them and put them all in charge, all rolled into one. I need somewhere quite to work. I guess I do actually have it (the alternate wiki-like projects), I should just put in more work on them. In the end I could analyse this place into oblivion and waste my life doing it, or trying to assist in saving it, and it would be a wasted effort. I mean, there are some people who do nothing but object to my presentation, preferring their subconscious tendency to create a class system in the judicial forums, where newcomers would simply be unable to address anyone. Arbcomm is already out of reach of everyone, but the idiotic part is there are no lawyers on wikipedia, so what is the separation for ? There is no rich class who can afford lawyers who do not exist, no poor class to hold justice out of reach of, so they just make Arbcom it's own little corner of it's own little universe. ANI is proving to be the same in some ways. 42. that is the answer, as above. Penyulap  ☏  13:38, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I like the flies and the farm analogy; it does describe this place very well, but what will Mr. Jimbo say about the state of the furniture when he gets home? Maybe he never cared in the first place? As for proven facts, it seems that the very loud squeaky wheel always reaches pleadingly for sympathetic earlobes. The new trend is how many friends (I'm a poet and I don't know it). It has always amused me how Monty Python's "Four Yorkshiremen" is so true for this place. People here pay to work at' mill, tha' knows. BTW, I think that to find the question to the answer of 42 (or to perfect every article here), will take as long as Deep Thought said it would. At that critical moment, "Earth is destroyed by Vogons warring editors five minutes before the computation the very last edit is complete". That's something to look forward to, no? As an ex-admin told me last week, "You could work on an article your whole life, and it would still be shite". :)) Happy days.--andreasegde (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Were we notified?
Did you know about this processhere?


 * I think you mean this.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I meant this here regarding the method of accepting input. The main page is not relevant, anymore.

Also, see the response to my queerie about one artice, only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.125.65 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is it?--andreasegde (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MedCom people are requesting input by email only and the request appears to be hidden on the mediation talk page without any notices issued. When I requested clarifiacion they posted the same link GabeMc's posting regarding the mediation page, not the talk page where input instructions are posted. Seeslike dirty politics, to me. I have posted a notice on a few Beatles articles but in the process noted that hundreds of Beatles articles are written with capitalisation used for the group name. Seems past editors realized the difference between the grup name and the individual member names. WoW! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did see a conversation where a certain editor said it would be good to have you off the mediation. Just pick a user name, and you're in.--andreasegde (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I thread
I note that you were not notified of my closing the thread there, and I hadn't thought of doing it myself. My apologies about that.

After evaluating the discussion, it seems clear that the best way forward is for you to lay off editing articles relating to the Beatles, and from direct interaction with GabeMc. I've thus closed the discussion regarding you with: Note that formal dispute resolution (including the now-ongoing mediation) is specifically excluded from this; so that your participation there is not only permitted, but also encouraged. I'm sure that the community would be more than willing to reconsider the topic ban at the conclusion of the mediation process, if your contribution there has been positive. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A one year topic ban from articles related to the Beatles, broadly construed; and
 * an indefinite interaction ban with GabeMc.
 * So that means articles like Mimi Smith, and Brian Epstein, amongst many other minor characters in the background? It seems the editor mentioned above has no interest in them.--andreasegde (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. This would also include, for instance, editing the parts of Liverpool related to the group.  For now, it's better if you steer clear of this entirely to avoid spreading the dispute and making things worse.  I'd concentrate your Beatles efforts on constructive participation to the mediation and on other topics.  I note you have edited in plenty other areas, and that lots of other musicians you've shown an interest in could use some editing love.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Dunn's book?
Do you mean Christopher Dunn? If so, how about discussing that first on the article talk page? My slight contact with Dunn suggests he's a nice guy, but I can't see him as useful for an Egyptian article. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I correctly added the book ref in the Bibliography section, with the page number in the References section, and Christopher Dunn has a Wiki article. I also added a National Geographic Society web reference. My edit was that Egyptian workers built the pyramids, and not the Pharaohs personally.--andreasegde (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * people have such insane ideas about the manner in which the three largest pyramids were constructed. The endless mainstream theories never cease to amuse me. Penyulap  ☏  15:44, 26 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking into account the workforce needed, the stone to be cut, the meagre tools they had to do it, and the height and width of them, it was probably an insane idea to start the whole thing in the first place. Mountain climbers often answer why they climb by saying, "Because it's there", and people chanting, "Yes we can", all seem to stem from the past. Of course, it could have been one Pharaoh singing, "Anything you can do, I can do better".--andreasegde (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bah, you're fooled as well. You fall into the school of thought that if evidence of something cannot be found, then that in itself is evidence that it did not exist. Where are the steam traction engines that once powered the industrial world now ? and after such a short time. Fossilised ? I don't think so. Doesn't prove they never existed. Penyulap  ☏  03:29, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more of a "take away what is impossible, and what is left... but..." I can accept any theory, but I don't think it will be proven in my lifetime, which is a bugger.--andreasegde (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

99
I asked 99.251.125.65 (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

New
The comments on WP often remind me of the attitude back home. Whenever there's any kind of wedding, party or social gathering, alcohol is mixed with resentment and insecurity, which then turns into a brawl of some kind. At some point someone will shout something like, "I remember what you said to my uncle in 1983!" That's why I left the place, but they still ask, "Do you ever think of moving back?" Do penguins speak Russian with a lisp?--andreasegde (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, and Christmas is the time of year when all the relatives gather together and wonder why. Penguins go for cuddling, with that in mind, they are birds of very few words. Now dogs are the best. I've never met a dog that wasn't multilingual, chickens have just a few words, but a wide variety of languages. Cats all speak French, and even if you speak to them French with a perfect accent, they know your not from their part of France, or even from France at all, and they despise you for it. Penyulap  ☏  13:54, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * True story: I once heard a man talking to his dog when I first arrived here, and I instinctively thought, "Why isn't he speaking English to the dog? It can't understand a word he's saying." A split-second later, I realised that when you walk out of your front door in the morning, a dog thinks you just stand outside the door for hours before coming back in.--andreasegde (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They know that you have gone, they will only goto the door out of wanting to follow, they can smell and hear you, or not. But there are the dogs who return to the last place their master was, Hachikō was such a dog. I put the rest of this comment into an email. Penyulap  ☏  17:02, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, such a lovely story. This one, Greyfriars Bobby too. Patthedog (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I really do thank you for dropping in, Patthedog. A little light-but-friendly conversation is exactly what we all need at this point in time. Two sugars and a biccy? :)) --andreasegde (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely. A choccy biccy, if you’ve got one thanks. Que sera, sera. Patthedog (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Bugger the indents... McVitie's, whatever they are (Digestive, which was supposedly invented to stop one from gassing the place out, believe it or not). The fact that I can't get them over here makes me want them more, but the local supermarket recently had one single tray of Coleman's Mustard jars, so I bought three.--andreasegde (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugger The Indents? Was that Noel Coward or Frankie Howerd? I’ll remember your tip about Digestives the next time I have a meat madras, which reminds that at this point I’d like to thank Peter Higgs for predicting, and CERN for confirming, that we have his boson to thank, and not Young’s Special Bitter after all - which is something I’d miss - for our mass. When I die (but not a moment before) I want my ashes placed in a helium filled condom and sent above their brewery, or the beautiful Oxford spires, or Anfield. You never know, it could float over your way instead, I shall tie a packet of Hobnobs to it, just in case! I had spoonful of Coleman’s last night with my steak, as it happens. Lovely!Patthedog (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is probably the worst attack on my salivating glands I have ever read. It's unbelievable how one misses the everyday basics: Sarson's, John Smith's Smooth, pork scratchings, cheese & onion crisps, fish & chips, bacon butties with HP brown sauce from a greasy spoon cafe, liquorice (they hate it over here), and mint sauce, amongst many others.--andreasegde (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * bah ! you guys ! you need some real food. Google image search Durians prohibited, if what you want to eat is not banned at airports along with explosives and weapons, then it ain't worth eating. wooses !!!! Penyulap  ☏  16:53, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never eaten one, but it's probably banned because it looks like a very large grenade. Ka-boom..--andreasegde (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Durian Durian? great band - Hungry Like The Wolf. Well, I don’t mind smelly food; take a mature Cheddar for example, a nice port (Rotterdam perhaps?) and a good cigar. I’d give anything a try, once. Patthedog (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugger me into a state of rigidity; I forgot to mention cheese. Red Leicester used to have real veins of wine running through it; now it's just pink all over. Now that's what some editors would call "flowery language".--andreasegde (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The MoS, and who edits it
I find this quite interesting.--andreasegde (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't recall if I saw that one a few times or there were a few changes, I don't try to keep up. Anyhow, I can't see a problem with it. You get everyone to agree that they want to follow the MOS, and then you edit the blank cheque they give you to suit yourself. Are you implying there is something wrong with that by making personal attacks yet again ? Penyulap  ☏  12:15, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * All this kerfuffle is about the MoS, and how everyone should stick to it, but who writes it? It seems to be the only major page here that has only four references.
 * BTW, I recently found out that 53 people watch this page, but you have 75, which obviously proves that you're a lot more popular than I am. What's your secret?--andreasegde (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 53 ? how did you manage that ? you're ok. Me ? I release the inner moron, that's how I get ahead in life. It's the secret of success of every leader. Take every workplace you ever worked in, what one word sums up most of the bosses you've worked for ? how about politics ? what about presidents ? You see where I'm going with this ? you have to reach down deep inside you to that place completely devoid of reason. Then you can do anything you want, like grammar. Or in my case, become a landmark veteran editor in what was it, 15 months someone said. People now quote me saying 'he only edits out of spite' I like that, rather than mention anything good I do. There are people who want to do absolutely nothing else except complain, so hey, just throw em a bone now and then. Keeps everyone happy. Penyulap  ☏  13:07, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Angharad Rees Birth-Date
Hello, I wonder if you could help me here. An anonymous editor, 92.4.213.239 (talk), has reverted three-times on the Angharad Rees page by changing her date of birth without a source. I Undid twice and left a warning concerning Original Research + WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the Three Revert Rule on their Talk page, but now they have put in a reference (unverifiable on-line) from the General Registry Office, admittedly citing the page number etc.. Is this acceptable in your opinion? Otherwise I am unsure how to proceed. Sorry to ask, but you seem much more au-fait with the Wiki rules than me! Hope you are keeping well and enjoying the Olympics!! Manxwoman (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This needs a little detective work and logic. It says here (Linford Rees' obituary): "He married Catherine Thomas in 1940 and they enjoyed a happy marriage until her death in 1993. In his widowhood, Linford was wonderfully supported by his two sons and two daughters". I haven't yet seen the dates of when Angharad's brothers and sister were born. If she was the oldest, it's possible she was born in 1944, but if she was younger/the youngest it's extremely possible that she was born in 1949.
 * Dot, dit, dot... After reading about his life, it seems that as he moved back to Wales after the war, and as Angharad was born in London, her birth date looks like it had to be 1944, because he moved back to London in 1954.--andreasegde (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a ref confirming the 1944 birth date on her page, and posted a note on 92.4.213.239's page.--andreasegde (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that certainly answers that! Thank you so much for your help - way beyond the call of duty!!! Hope you didn't mind my asking. Manxwoman (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem; it was fun.--andreasegde (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Agree/disagree
I do agree with the decision of the mediators that the compromise does not resolve the question of "the v. The". However, I consider the compromise to have considerable merit, in that, in general, avoiding mid-sentence use of "the/The Beatles" is more graceful, and there's nothing in the mediators' decision that prohibits an editor from exercising that option. When it comes down to the nub of the issue, though, Wikipedia as a community needs to make a decisive statement on "the/The". I hope this clarifies. Thanks for your inquiry.Jburlinson (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply.--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles mediation
Please consider dialing back the rhetoric &mdash; no one is being "destructive to the future stability of Wikipedia". You yourself said that this "will most definitely arise again at some point in the future" and now you say that the expectation that there will be more arguments about the/The is incomprehensible? Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 20:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You said that the problem will arise again in the future by saying "This will be true no matter what the outcome is." I've been through too many squabbles, heart-rending disagreements, vociferous arguments, and the fact that many editors left the project, exactly because of that. If you had taken part in any one of those most horrible/destructive discussions (and they were), you would agree why I proposed the Triangular Diplomacy II. This thing will never go away, and Wikipedia will suffer for it, which will be the saddest thing of all. Minimising is the only way forward, and avoids an article looking like fancruft.
 * I beg you to think about the arguments that will take place on other pages, such as The Who, The Cure, and The The, as well as many, many others. I truly want Wikipedia to succeed, and if any "law" is enforced, it will drive younger editors away. They are the future of this, after all.--andreasegde (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I won't be around to implement this - do with it as you will.
I have written up, what I think would be a working compromiseand was going to post it on Mcshithead's talk page but since he has been such an asshole and will never collaborate with another view... trouble is he runs the place and is so afraid of me he is shitting his pants with every word I write...LOL, and you have had your pee-pee slapped because McGod is afraid of you too. Anyway here goes. --
 * Compromise. I can understand almost all the views of most people's concerns, here. As a compromise, to most, I would like to offer a possible solution to address most of those concerns for this otherwise conundrum:
 * Extend Andreasegde's Triangular Diplomacy II solution from 2011! Before anybody freaks-out, please read the rest. This solution  would continue to promote the usage of pronoun references to band names, mid-sentence while still retaining the ability to occasionally use the band's name or individual member references, mid-sentence. Complaints about the usage of all pronouns making boring, repetitive, prose in the article would be addressed by  adding this addendum to the previous Triangular Diplomacy II solution, already observed by many.
 * Mid-sentence usage of both, "The Beatles" and "the Beatles" be permitted, occasionally with these caveats:
 * Provided an identifying phrase is used to indicate usage,
 * When referring to band members, a lowercase "t" should be used ie. "the Beatles",
 * when referring to the band, as a corporate whole, an uppercase "T" should be used. ie. "The Beatles".


 * Some Examples:
 * "The Beatles were a rock band of great accomplishment." = capitalisation is always used at the beginning of a sentence, regardless.
 * "Paul became a Beatle" = obvious individual (non-group) reference, no "the" or identifying phrase needed.
 * "Paul became one of the most popular members of The Beatles band" = whole group reference with "band" identifier and also obvious context.
 * "Paul became one of most long-lived members of The Beatles band" = group reference with "band" identifier and obvious context.
 * "George Martin became involved with The Beatles group later." = "group" clarifies corporate group usage meaning.
 * "After the event the individual Beatles went separate ways" = "individual" clarifies individual member context.
 * "After the event the Beatles individuals went separate ways" = "individuals" clarifies.
 * "After the event The Beatles members went separate ways" = members clarifies the band/group. (a gotcha').
 * If people have other extreme examples, perhaps we can see them in order to fine tune and clarify to satisfy almost all collaborative editors.
 * This solution could resolve most of the concerns stated in this medcom proceding. Future editing from newer editors may violate these seemingly complicated rules but would be easy to fix with addition of either simple words or cap correction and a references to some posted (MOS?) rules. The only arguments (I can see) that may arise would be whether the band or the individual members are being referred to. The simple fix, for these disputes, would be to return that particular sentence back to the Triangular Diplomacy solution. This would appear to be inline with hundreds of other musical articles already observing a similar de facto standard. Any violations would be easy to correct and violations would not look outside of most grammar usage anyway. I don't really see any other way to satify so many different concepts, here. Trademarks don't work and the MOS contradicts itself and grammar in many places.

If this solution is even remotely desired by the majority, and/or medcom team, here, this could be fine tuned by controlled input to medcom mediators. Also implementation methods for clarifying to newcomers would need input on how to set up the MoS page, possibly. Beyond my knowledges. This MoS should apply to all musical articles, if we can make it work. Have a nice life! If I am still here in a few hours Iwill drop back in harrass the crap out of you some more! ROFL! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand, and I was very pleasantly surprised how quickly you picked up the idea of The Beatles as a band/group, and the individual Beatles being written about as "Lennon and McCartney were the Beatles who...". I thank you for that.
 * The only thing now is to wait, because whatever happens is in the hands of other people, which is a decision that will affect future arguments relating to exactly the same problem, but on very, very many other pages. The chaos and strife could be repeated endlessly, which would be a sad thing, indeed.--andreasegde (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, GabeMc asked me, as another ID to assist him with stopping what he considered harrassment, from you, permanently. I agreed and we set up other lines of communication to do this. After becoming more aware of what the material actually was, I could see your side and what he was attempting to do was quite wrong. He is also running a few other sockpuppets, that defend him quite strongly, as you have seen. After seeing some contrary logic from my posts he turned against my IP address editor with BS reports, eventually successfully, and with his efforts, took other editors out of the picture by discouraging them until they imploded and gave up. Even an admin lost his cool and his account, with him,and was involved from this disruptive ediotor. The deck is stacked against your reasonible editing collaboration. You could also try the make a regular donation of finances to the Wiki Foundation and then see if you get more support and a bulletproof vest as another already has proven quite workable. Sorry for my initial attempts with GabeMc to plot against you. I have seen the error of my ways and again apologise. Too bad, as his plot, if successful will destroy WP with massive edits to music articles to follow, then the rv, the massive amount of history generated and the massive accounts that will be blocked... and for what? to accomodate the power greedy anarchist sitting on his donation throne. Jimbo should be ashamed of himself. Coren is part of it. It's bloody disgusting, defrauding the public with these lies. Cheerio! 99.251.150.62 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that you can disregard the comment by this IP, see Sockpuppet_investigations/I_have_no_clue_who_the_sockpuppeteer_is. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know who it is as 99 and I have talked in the past. The content of this post is very shocking, and I have no idea whether to believe it or not. --andreasegde (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)