User talk:Coneslayer

Welcome to my talk page. I prefer to reply to messages on this page, so that the discussion is readable in its entirety. If you prefer otherwise, please say so when you leave a message. If I have posted on your talk page, I will be watching so you can reply there if you wish.

I am under no obligation to be civil
Herb Schildt thanked me for getting the violations of BLP out of the article last winter. I'm under no obligation to be civil in a medium which is being deliberately used to destroy people and cause them pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.138.106 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edit?
Coneslayer,

Could you please tell me why you reverted "The Shocker" article back to the 1:33 p.m. Oct. 3, 2006 edit of "The Shocker"? I intentionally put the variation of "The Eye of the Storm" on that page because it is a REAL variation. Although there is no citation, much of the page lacks citations. I see no reason for you to remove my addition. I am going to put it back in the article. I would appreciate if you did not remove it. If there is a reason that you are removing it, please tell me. Thank you.

-Ben Potts


 * Ben, there are a couple of issues with your addition. First, I have a strong suspicion that it is autobiographical in nature, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia.  If I am wrong, please let me know how you came to learn about this maneuver being used at the high school you mention.  Second, it's one thing to claim that "X is a variation"; it is another to make a historical claim that "X is a variation that was invented by Y".  You can make a living claiming to invent new sex acts, but in all likelihood, someone's done it before.  It's the historical claim which I would say requires a citation, demonstrating the originality of the act.  -- Coneslayer 15:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx for Great Circle link
Hey Coneslayer: Thanks for the Great Circle Mapper link; it's pretty cool - I mean, very useful tool.

Bwefler 16:29 (MST), 4 Mar 2005


 * My pleasure, it's been a favorite of mine for years. It was mentioned in today's "Ask the Pilot" column on Salon.com (subscription req'd?) which made me think of adding it here. - Coneslayer

Reverts
Ah! I see we were both reverting Tides of Blood at the same time. I was one version older than you - but I don't mean to suggest that it was better! Musser 19:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries, I had no opinion one way or the other about the edit you reverted and I didn't. And better to have too many of us cleaning up vandalism than none of us!  -- Coneslayer 19:57, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on the Muay Thai page! Appreciate it! --84.217.115.202 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Birdfeeding
Your changes turned a set of proper links to Wikipedia articles into links to redirects (check goose and geese, for example). You gave no reason for your changes in the edit summary or one the Talk page, so I reverted until I found out what was going on. Could you do that? As the person who originally wrote the article was American, I had to assume that he knew something of what he was talking about, and had a reason for writing what he did, so an unexplained change (accompanied by breaking the Wikilinks) seemed safer to revert (also, see, ). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the links weren't technically broken, but Wikipedia policy is to avoid redirects/piping. Also, it's common practice to use singulars in lists of this kind, though there's nothing wrong with plurals of course.
 * On the capitalisation, I find the Wikipedia habit rather strange, as every other source that I've seen uses lower case for species names. I've never bothered to say anything about that, though.  In this case, on the other hand, we're talking about common names, and those surely should be in lower case; it looks odd to see a list in which some names are capitalised and some not, on the basis of a non-standard desire to capitalise specific species.
 * I added the links because they list jackdaws as being North American birds. I'm not suggesting that you're wrong, only indicating why explanation was needed. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw your message just as I'd finished adding a list of the ten commonest garden birds in the U.K. The RSPB web site uses lower case, as do all the bird books that I have, but I'm not worried about that, and I certainly shan't argue the point (again, just explaining why I was surprised).  It might be nice to convert the current U.S. list into something similar, rather than just an unordered and rather vague list of some of the commonest birds.  I was interested to see that only two species occur on both lists (though I realised just how different the avifauna are in the U.S. when a couple of my visiting students said that they'd seen a  raven in College &mdash; which turned out to be a blackbird... Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad you liked the list. Of course, it's overgeneralised here too; for example, in our present garden we'd have to put dunnocks and wrens (and possibly coal tits) in the top ten, and starlings and wood pigeons would drop off the bottom, while in our London garden we'd have had to omit chaffinches and collared doves and add jays and magpies.

I've replaced the older U.S. list with the 2005 list from the Great Backyard Bird Count (thanks for putting me on to that). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PNC Park?
You've got to admit, whoever wrote "It is also the only sport stadium in the united states made totaly out of foam rubber" showed more inspiration than the average vandal on this site. d:) Wahkeenah 15:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I actually thought for a moment that there might be a grain of truth to it (but badly phrased). Like in some parks, the warning track is a rubber material.  I thought maybe he meant there was some rubber substrate under the whole field, or something.  Anyway, it's a cut above the usual "George W. Bush is the current GAY HOMO!!!! of the United States of America" crap.  -- Coneslayer 15:29, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?
It's official!' The first-ever L.A. Wiki Meetup will be occuring on July 25th, 2005. Are you coming? Would you like to help host? More details on the Meetup page. Be sure to check back regularly for updates! - Eric 2 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

more SoCal Wiki news
Since you are in Lancaster, I'd like to point out the relatively new California WikiProject, and Southern California WikiProject. Please check out the web pages and see if there is anything you are interested in. Blank Verse  &empty;  09:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll check it out! -- Coneslayer 14:39, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

link removal
We attempted to put a couple of commercial links to our company on to your website. A day later we were sent this by you

“Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising. The commercial links you're adding to numerous pages are being removed. -- Coneslayer 15:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)” We are sorry for the misunderstanding and now understand that it is not possible to have commerical links. The reason we tried in the first place is that on one of your pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time we came across a commerical link to one of our competitors and so we were wondering if this is a mistake.

the link we saw on that page is “ Time Servers NTP Time Servers” and goes to http://www.timetools.com

Russ


 * Hi, Russ. Thanks for the note.  Since Wikipedia is a collaborative volunteer effort that anyone can edit, it's always possible that someone will do something they shouldn't, and nobody else notices in order to correct the problem.  Obvious vandalism ("GEORGE BUSH SLEEPS WITH DONKEYS!!!LOL!1!", etc.) is more likely to be noticed than things like commercial links.  I'll check out the page you mention.  Thanks for the heads up.  -- Coneslayer 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, nothing (technically or by policy) prevents you from removing such commercial links, or other violations of our guidelines, yourself if you want. Just explain what you're doing in the "Edit summary" box so that other people understand.  I've removed the commercial link you mentioned above.  -- Coneslayer 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush
Please stop harassing me. I changed it back immediately, so obviously you need to lay off. Thanks -- Chrisottjr 23:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First, you hadn't yet changed it back when I started the revert. Second, you didn't change it back the way it was .  Third, asking you once not to vandalize pages is not harrassment.  Fourth, there is absolutely no reason to vandalize a page in the first place, whether you "changed it back immediately" or not.  If you really think I'm harrassing you, go tell an admin.  I'd love to see it.  -- Coneslayer 04:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, how about one more? You've been warned before about vandalism.  (Of course, it's always "harrassment" to you, huh?)  -- Coneslayer 05:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for investigating me. I already discussed that matter (Wolfmother), which I explained that I inserted a real picture and did not consider it vandalism. Look vandalism up. There was no intent whatsoever to push any kind of point or poke fun at with the matter of Wolfmother. Please stop wasting my time and your energy. And get some sleep too. It looks to me like you've been up for about 24 hours. -- Chrisottjr 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been up for 15 hours, prior to which I slept for 7 or 8. Math is hard! -- Coneslayer 05:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My Userpage
Hey, thanks, it seems you have paid me in kind for reverting the vandalism to your user page. I appreciate it. Best, Irongargoyle 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to have you watching my back. -- Coneslayer 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A question:
This is honestly a question:

I am not trying to be some smart-ass who wants to find loop-holes in your rules.

CAN I or CAN I NOT act like a jerk as I wish on my userpage as long as it isn't addressed toward anyone or anything in particular?

I know you read it, because you had asked me to review the civility policy. (I don't expect you to remember details or anything.)

Keep in mind, that I DID change it and that I am NOT trying to argue with you. I am just expressing how I feel, and you have every right to say, "Hey, well that's not how things work around here. So TOUGH LUCK!".

The ONLY reason why I thought that content was acceptable was because it's a User Page. It doesn't even show up in normal Wikipedia searches. I just don't see how it could be offensive if noone goes there barring people who have seen my name on edit history and/or administrators. Not to mention: It was plain jerkiness! It wasn't aimed at anyone or anything.

Also, one more thing: Are you atleast allowed to use profane language on your user page if it is not referring to anyone or anything?

-Thanks A LOT! MLCamp 18:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * MLCamp, check out WP:USER. Your Wikipedia user page should relate to your activities on Wikipedia; it is not a general-purpose web hosting service.  Wikipedia is not censored, so there are no prohibitions about profane language, per se.  If you have other questions about user pages, you might bring them up on Wikipedia_talk:User_page; I'm just a random guy, and my advice is only worth the electrons it's written with.  -- Coneslayer 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

-I am sorry, also another question. It's personal, I just noticed YOUR userpage (lovely compared to mine)

Do you just like birding or birds in general? I love to watch birds but I also own several. A Congo African grey and Two tiels (White face pied, and pied... uh and two cats, a dog and a ferret) I was just wondering. Seems like an odd hobby for a non-bird owner. Then again, I wouldn't know. Sorry about this type of question... I just thought I would add it in there...

-Thanks MLCamp 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never owned birds, although my wife had zebra finches before we were married. They didn't like the cats climbing their cage, though.  I enjoy hiking and other outdoor activities, and came to birding that way--something else that's fun to do in the outdoors, and an excuse to visit new places (and ID'ing a dificult bird is mentally challenging, too). -- Coneslayer 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Cheney
Yeah, my removal of the term here was simply because it's implied without the word and is inherently redundant. My comment has to do with a pet peeve of mine that the prefix "pre" is migrating in common use from "before (modified word)" to mean "the (modified word) that occurred before." While obviously connected tangentially to the context here, it was not the (only) reason I removed the word. JDoorj a m    Talk 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keck
I noticed you watch Keck Observatory, what do you think about merging Keck Interferometer with it? IvoShandor 12:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tirade?
OK, maybe my updated summary at Lamest edit wars was a little lurid. But then again, "the page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous." I'll rewrite it again and try to strike a balance. Eleland 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The content of Lamest edit wars should be a concise description of the point of contention. The old version is stylistically compatible with the other entries in the article; your versions seem to be trying to make a point.  Since you have participated in this edit war, I think you should avoid editing the entry in Lamest edit wars.  -- Coneslayer 17:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I can understand that objection. I guess it would be small-minded of me to point out that the "point" is self-evidently correct, since the deletions were all done by sockpuppets with extremely crude attempts to game the talkpage, complete with false statements about what the references say. I've edited the listing once more to simply "neutrally" state that the incident was mentioned on air by a fellow DJ. Oh, I mean, by a person who is on the air several hours every weekday, selects music and content, and is listed on the website as air staff, but who may or may not be a DJ depending on what random IP vandals have to say. If you really don't think I should edit the entry, delete it entirely since I created it in the first place. Eleland 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to your latest version--thanks. I'm not really interested in reviewing the whole history of the debate, I just don't want the Lamest edit wars entry to ridicule one side more than the other.  It is, after all, meant to ridicule edit-warring in general, and taking sides hinders that purpose.  If the "war" was really just sockpuppetry and vandalism, then maybe it should be removed from the page.  But I'm not going to make that call.  -- Coneslayer 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference Desk
I appreciate that. Also consider the context, and consider others who may be acting like dicks. It takes two to tango so to speak. 64.236.121.129 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometime it only takes one. David D. (Talk) 20:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Rules nazi
I think I read an official ruling on wikipedia that used the word nazi, and having to do with being pedantic with rules. That's where I got it from. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the meaning of "caption" at FPC
Maybe you can clarify something for me. I'm not convinced that Fir's opinion on what is meant by "caption" makes a lot of sense. The regular, "below-image in article" caption may be different in different articles. If the FPC caption is not the POTD caption, who gets to decide on that? To me, the POTD caption is an integral part of an FP, and should probably be guided by consensus-finding. This not being the case would explain the low quality of biology-related POTD captions I've sometimes seen if this is how things work. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot find it at the moment, but I think I read in one of these recent discussions that the POTD caption is written or edited by Howcheng when he posts the POTD on the Main Page. I would hope that his captions incorporate useful feedback from the voting thread, but honestly, I've never compared the Main Page caption with the voting thread caption and comments to see if this is the case.  Obviously, I agree that the POTD caption should be as useful and accurate as possible, and incorporate suggestions from subject matter experts.  It almost seems to me that promotion to the front page should be a two-step process, with FPC as it is now, and then a peer review of the caption.   It's not really reasonable to expect that the best people to work on the caption also hang out at FPC. -- Coneslayer  15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is such a thing as "best person to write the caption". I think captions need just as much expert knowledge (by which I mean, if it's a caption about birds, it should be written by someone knowledgeable in birds; if the caption is about nuclear physics, a physicist, etc.) I'd trust about 20% of the regulars to write compelling prose in their field, so this should be manageable. Still, I'm curious how it works. I'm also concerned that Howcheng may have a lot of responsibility with little backup. What happens when his ISP gets taken out by some accident? Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are assuming the photographer is a biologist or "expert" in the subject they photograph. Truth be told the regulars at FPC are (and this isn't particularly surprising) experts in the field of photography not the subjects they photograph. POTD is entirely seperate from FPC - they are a seperate process run by a seperate group of regulars. And as you can read from my comments it's laughable the way people will apply a quantitative approach to the caption. People will copy and paste slabs of info from the article and bring it in as a caption and everyone's happy. If you follow the history (again linked in that discussion I had with Jeff which I'm beginning to think I should construct into a subpage similar to your headshot one) Howcheng is not interested in such captions - he's perfectly capable of hitting ctrl c and ctrl v when necessary. I wouldn't worry about his ISP going down and ruining POTD - last I checked he's got at least a month of buffer. --Fir0002 10:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Trolling
You realize what you are doing is trolling right? Please don't continue in this behavior. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

trolling is vandalism
anonymous user has edits only on the talk:cat page, and it's pure trolling, not good-faith at all - particularly when the editor attacks another editor uncivilly for a simple response. i'm unclear why you're encouraging this behavior. Anastrophe (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because discussion is not vandalism. Period.  The user is entitled to voice his opinion about what belongs in the article.  You are welcome to respond.  You are not entitled to delete the entire discussion. (Personal attacks, maybe, but certainly not the original comment.)  -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm deleting the entire discussion because it is trolling. that's proven by anon's response to a simple reply. this is classic activity. look at anon's 'contributions'. but whatever, anon will likely be blocked shortly. Anastrophe (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say a troll would be distinguished by a pattern of disruptive behavior. Commenting on the content of a single page suggests simply that he has an issue with the content of that particular page. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Julio
I see your Iglesias, and raise you a Strindberg (or however one phrases it). Your reply raised a hearty chuckle. SaundersW (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your response. Corvus cornix talk  20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Fact tag on Misc Helpdesk
I realise that you added the "fact" tag as a joke to your Mockingbird reply, but the tag does more than add the well-known "citation needed" text. It also adds the page to

(and, I believe, a number of other places), which is combed by a number of wikiprojects. I appreciate your levity and even got a smile out of it myself, but I believe that misusing it can cause headaches for others down the line. I hope you don't mind that I have removed the tag.  Plasticup  T / C  18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken; sorry for the inconvenience. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is no inconvenience at all, I only mentioned it because I have done the same thing myself  Plasticup  T / C  13:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Who are you?
And mind your own business, you boring little man. You might be useful though for something: please delete my username and page and all that rubbish if you can. Such a mistake, joining this bunch of freaks. Ethanoylchloride (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. your comments on my page, god only knows what you're talking about: strange jargon. As for 'possibly not fitting in', I dearly hope that I don't fit in. What a terrible prospect. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanoylchloride (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you solve the mystery?
It wasn't Encyclopædia Brown - but something very like! DuncanHill (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't recall him knowing much about cars, even though it's sometimes handy in his line of work. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Heathrow to Munich (BA)
Thanks again for your great answer. I must've missed it before. Cheers! Utan Vax (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to help! -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

FreeNAS
Hiya, Mr. Slayer. Just wanted to thank you for the advice you gave me on the reference desk. After a brief but embarrassing period where I was setting the FreeNAS root directory as the sharepoint (causing all sorts of wonderful shenanigans), I got it up and running! Thanks for your help - would never have known what to do without it. Badger Drink (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, glad to hear it! -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref Desk talk page
At the top it says: "This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks." That material does not fit the bill, which is why it was collapsed – not deleted, as it should have been, but collapsed. Please explain in what way Bugs' revert was helpful to discussion of the Reference Desks. Malcolm XIV (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I restated what the OP had said, which seems reasonable. Second, Malcolm has appointed himself the ref desk nanny. I see that today he finally contributed some information, albeit combined with taking verbal shots at other users - as per his SOP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you here, Mr Chatterbox. Is there anywhere on Wikipedia where you don't turn up? However, my question was not aimed at you, but at Coneslayer. Malcolm XIV (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Concealing your fellow editors' comments should be justified in the edit summary, not on my talk page. Absent an explanation for your action, it was not bad faith for Bugs to revert your edit, and it was therefore inappropriate for you to publicly insult him by claiming that it was.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After Bugs' edit here, I am led to believe that your concealment was driven by animosity toward Bugs more than anything else. Since this discussion obviously concerns him, there's nothing wrong with getting his input.  That would have been considerate all along.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain in what way any of the contracted material is helpful to discussion of the Reference Desks. Malcolm XIV (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There were some random comments by some editors, but there was also an important point or two, including that the editor under discussion in that section had (perhaps inadvertently) chopped a bunch of stuff from the ref desk page. Collapsing off-topic information on the ref desk itself is fair, and has been discussed before. Doing it on the ref desk talk page is spite. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Bugs here. It's the talk page, not an RD answer, and a little chatter is normal.  But my real point is that if you, Malcolm, want to discuss what people should and should not discuss on the RD talk page, then have that discussion on the RD talk page.  Don't appoint yourself ruler of the page (making unilateral decisions and accusing others of "bad faith"), and don't hold the discussion on my talk page.  Make your point where it belonged in the first place.  Bugs obviously dissents from your decision, and that merits discussion, not an "STFU" edit war.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I must say I'm disappointed that you take that view, but I'll go along with your feelings on the matter. As my experience has been that it's impossible to deal with the aforementioned editor without it descending into a "STFU edit war", I'll let the Ref Desk drown in irrelevant and inane chatter. Bye. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what STFU stands for it, but I'm guessing it's not good. I was read the riot act by a number of editors around the New Year and have tried to do better. I even got a tarnished star for my efforts. Malcolm did not participate in that discussion. His pattern is to turn up here every 2 weeks or so, make an edit or two, take some verbal shots at other editors, and then disappear again for awhile. Basically a single-purpose account. He's also apparently under the mistaken impression that he has the right to talk about editors behind their back without those editors knowing about it and/or commenting on it. There's some of that kind of thing on his own page - again, from single-purpose accounts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * STFU is the uncensored version of "shut up". -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger. I don't mind being reigned in. What I mind is being singled out by occasional or one-time editors, who cop an attitude. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He announced his retirement. Hard to figure what's up with that guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free holocaust image
You were correct to redact the non-free holocaust image that I have since replaced with a public domain one. I apologise for any inference that this was holocaust denial on your part. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
Don't edit war on other peoples' talk pages. Especially when you are reverting their comments on their own pages. Doing so doesn't diffuse problems, it escalates them. If you have a problem with a personal attack, then involve a third party or make another post asking for the the user to self-revert. For my money, being told you are trolling isn't enough of a personal attack to merit a huge mess. I recommend you be the bigger man/woman and just leave it there. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)