UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 04
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
April 2010
User:Imthatguy
- Not Vandalism - As boxy (and as Ross explained to Corn, I believe), until it goes through arbitration, there's no teeth to it. —Aichon— 02:53, 22 April 2010 (BST)
- Why is it that it's been deemed vandalism, and he's been warned? -Poodle of DoomM!
T 03:04, 22 April 2010 (BST)
- Because Cheese warned him off the bad (cause he does that sometimes, siiiiiiiigh) and they haven't struck it yet as the vote's since been overturned. -- 03:10, 22 April 2010 (BST)
- Why is it that it's been deemed vandalism, and he's been warned? -Poodle of DoomM!
Someone needs to remove the A/VD entry, and warning, etc. Because of all the sysops it's cheese that still makes idiot insta-warns on cases which aren't vandalism. fuck me, cheese, don't you even think anymore? The BBK used to do this to finis over 30 times a day and receive no retribution... If Tardholioo wants to say people can't comment that's his fucking problem. Not Imthaguy (and half the wiki, mind). --
03:08, 22 April 2010 (BST)
User:Cornholioo
Oh thank god... that son of a bitch is going to get a 24 hour ban! -Poodle of DoomM! 
T 22:41, 23 April 2010 (BST)
- Hopefully this will shut him up. The chances are slim, though.. Infrastructure 09:52, 24 April 2010 (BST)
- I hope it doesn't. The more he babbles, the better our odds of getting rid of him permanitly. -Poodle of DoomM! T 13:40, 24 April 2010 (BST)
- When you put it that way.. Infrastructure 14:02, 24 April 2010 (BST)
- I hope it doesn't. The more he babbles, the better our odds of getting rid of him permanitly. -Poodle of DoomM!
OMG!! OMG!! OMG!! OMG!! HERE WE GO!!! ONLY THREE MORE!!! -Poodle of DoomM! T 23:00, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- I'm hoping it won't come to that and that they'll all just stop mucking up the admin pages by actually behaving like responsible adults. Banning him isn't a fix, despite what others may think, and I'm not eager to see him rack up escalations. —Aichon— 23:30, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- I'd originally hoped it wouldn't come to that either. In reality, I think that for the average, run of the mill, contributer to the wiki,... the mass majority of the wiki users would agree with you on that. But there comes a time when you need to realize that you can't fix stupid. You just need to part ways with it. My god,... three escalations in the last two weeks, four in total, and many more warnings prior to that in casual conversation for realitivly the same thing? It's time to just weed out this particular wiki denizen. -Poodle of DoomM! T 00:05, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- You care about this guy way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way too much. Cyberbob Talk 02:52, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Hey, you perpetuate the conversation by adding to it.... go on, prove me right. Add more to the conversation.... -Poodle of DoomM! T 04:27, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- That's like arguing that you contribute to CO2 content in the atmosphere by breathing. Go on, prove me right. Breathe more. —Aichon— 05:37, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- It's funny 'cause it's true. I've not once added to this conversation until something else has happened. You want it to end? Don't add to it... -Poodle of DoomM! T 13:31, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- It's funny 'cause it's true. I've not once added to this conversation until something else has happened. You want it to end? Don't add to it... -Poodle of DoomM!
- That's like arguing that you contribute to CO2 content in the atmosphere by breathing. Go on, prove me right. Breathe more. —Aichon— 05:37, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Hey, you perpetuate the conversation by adding to it.... go on, prove me right. Add more to the conversation.... -Poodle of DoomM!
- You care about this guy way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way too much. Cyberbob Talk 02:52, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- I'd originally hoped it wouldn't come to that either. In reality, I think that for the average, run of the mill, contributer to the wiki,... the mass majority of the wiki users would agree with you on that. But there comes a time when you need to realize that you can't fix stupid. You just need to part ways with it. My god,... three escalations in the last two weeks, four in total, and many more warnings prior to that in casual conversation for realitivly the same thing? It's time to just weed out this particular wiki denizen. -Poodle of DoomM!
User:The Colonel
Editing my messages. White regards, Cornholioo 18:05, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- Are you completely out of your mind? Infrastructure 18:10, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- He is right you know. Impersonation, next time Kraus should stick his own signature at the end, not just edit some else his signed text.--
Thadeous Oakley 18:50, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how he still find it possible to claim what Krauser removed. Sorry for being a bit confusing. Infrastructure 18:52, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- What you talk about isn't the point, though. Colonel's edit could have the official endorsement as the utter truth by the Queen, the Pope and Kevan himself all at once, and it would be all fine and dandy, hadn't he left Cornys sig in the Danger Report (which constitutes impersonation). --Spiderzed 18:56, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- I know that, I just - *Sigh** - I should just give up. This wiki isn't good for my mental health.. Infrastructure 18:58, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- You probably should give up, you're not very smart. Cyberbob Talk 19:22, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- We don't talk about a big deal anyway. As there isn't any vandal data on him yet, the worst what The Colonel can receive is an official warning. Which is practically meaningless but as a stepping stone towards actual bans, and which he probably knew and expected when he did the edit. --Spiderzed 19:26, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- You probably should give up, you're not very smart. Cyberbob Talk 19:22, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- I know that, I just - *Sigh** - I should just give up. This wiki isn't good for my mental health.. Infrastructure 18:58, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- What you talk about isn't the point, though. Colonel's edit could have the official endorsement as the utter truth by the Queen, the Pope and Kevan himself all at once, and it would be all fine and dandy, hadn't he left Cornys sig in the Danger Report (which constitutes impersonation). --Spiderzed 18:56, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how he still find it possible to claim what Krauser removed. Sorry for being a bit confusing. Infrastructure 18:52, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- He is right you know. Impersonation, next time Kraus should stick his own signature at the end, not just edit some else his signed text.--
Not Vandalism, unlike the link above The Colonel had never previously edited a danger report. Seems like a newb error. Don't do it again. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:46, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- He's been here for over a year..... --/~Rakuen~\Talk
I Still Love Grim 19:52, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- Oh, hey woot. You back? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:16, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- Maybe--/~Rakuen~\Talk I Still Love Grim 20:17, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- I was warned too for editing Zyckde's personal page when I didn't know I wasn't allowed to, and banned for 24 hours for undeliberately re-adding IP adresses when I didn't know I wasn't allowed. If we go down this road then that was unfair as well. --Cornholioo 20:37, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- This is strictly a matter of impersonation. Neither of the cases you cite had anything to do with impersonation. Also, incidentally, you weren't banned for re-adding the IP addresses, since we all understood that you didn't have time to see the warning before you added them back. You were banned for adding them in the first place. Those cases were not unfair in any way, and the outcome of this case does not have an impact on your cases in the least. —Aichon— 23:05, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- That makes it even easier. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to when I posted them in the first place. That makes it a newb action. See also my post of 6:09, 1 May 2010 (BST) --Cornholioo 13:51, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- This is strictly a matter of impersonation. Neither of the cases you cite had anything to do with impersonation. Also, incidentally, you weren't banned for re-adding the IP addresses, since we all understood that you didn't have time to see the warning before you added them back. You were banned for adding them in the first place. Those cases were not unfair in any way, and the outcome of this case does not have an impact on your cases in the least. —Aichon— 23:05, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- I was warned too for editing Zyckde's personal page when I didn't know I wasn't allowed to, and banned for 24 hours for undeliberately re-adding IP adresses when I didn't know I wasn't allowed. If we go down this road then that was unfair as well. --Cornholioo 20:37, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- Maybe--/~Rakuen~\Talk
- Oh, hey woot. You back? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:16, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- He's edited them before, though I will grant that that one's formatting was incorrect. I still think he should have known better, hence my vote. —Aichon— 23:05, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- Thanks for the explaination. So this is vandalism. 1. because this was not a newb action (check the link above). 2. because even if it was a newb action IT IS STILL VANDALISM OMFG WTF PEOPLE?!?!?!?
- Why in Wodan's name is everyone backing him up??? I've had a newb action once and I also got the warning. Then there was a miscommunication and I got a 24 hour ban! Since when is it OK to commit vandalism "because you are a newb"??? And as can be seen above, this wasn't even a newb action..... --Cornholioo 0:05, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Cornholioo, shush. We assume good faith unless we have reason to believe otherwise, and in the case of impersonation, wikinewbs get the benefit of the doubt quite often, especially if we have no reason to believe they know better, since it's easy to accidentally impersonate. In the case of posting personal information, however, we have no recourse but to assume bad faith, since there is very rarely a good reason for posting information of that nature. And the miscommunication was not why you got banned. See my previous comments here for why you were banned. —Aichon— 01:26, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Yes my friend it was. I did not read the message of Rosslessness in which he warned me not to post IP adresses, before I reposted them. I then got banned for reposting them, while I had not readed the warning. I don't care what all the others here believe, because I know that I had not read it. Then my other argument still stands: I edited zyckde's personal page were I didn't know I wasn't allowed to. And now don't come with "that's not impersonation". It's a newb mistake, just like what some Jews try to let us believe here as well. And this is not a newb mistake as well. I'm really debating with Judas here. --Cornholioo 6:09, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- *eyetwitch* Once again, the fact that you reposted it didn't matter one bit. Re-read the vandal case and you'll see that it was acknowledged that you couldn't have seen the warning and reacted in time, so your reposting was a non-factor in determining whether or not it was vandalism. As for posting on Zyckde's user page, we ruled Not Vandalism for you on the grounds that we figured you made a newbish mistake, so I fail to see why you're bringing it up. The sword swings both ways, sometimes favoring you, and sometimes favoring others. Most importantly, however, let me be very clear on one point: I am not your friend. As a sysop, I am doing my best to remain impartial in my decisions, making them based on facts, logic, and common sense while being polite and courteous in my exchanges with you. I do this so that you and others can know that I conduct myself professionally in administrative matters. But do not mistake that for friendship or even kindness, because it is neither. For now, I'll just say that I do not take pleasure in interacting with you (though I do so in the interest of clearing up confusion or educating when necessary) and will leave it at that. —Aichon— 09:03, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Like I said above "That makes it even easier. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to when I posted them in the first place. That makes it a newb action."
- And no, I've got a warning for editing Zyckde's page, while it was a newbish mistake as well. That's why I'm bringing it up. 'My friend' was just a way to adress you. I do not consider you a friend of mine either. --Cornholioo 14:20, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- *eyetwitch* Once again, the fact that you reposted it didn't matter one bit. Re-read the vandal case and you'll see that it was acknowledged that you couldn't have seen the warning and reacted in time, so your reposting was a non-factor in determining whether or not it was vandalism. As for posting on Zyckde's user page, we ruled Not Vandalism for you on the grounds that we figured you made a newbish mistake, so I fail to see why you're bringing it up. The sword swings both ways, sometimes favoring you, and sometimes favoring others. Most importantly, however, let me be very clear on one point: I am not your friend. As a sysop, I am doing my best to remain impartial in my decisions, making them based on facts, logic, and common sense while being polite and courteous in my exchanges with you. I do this so that you and others can know that I conduct myself professionally in administrative matters. But do not mistake that for friendship or even kindness, because it is neither. For now, I'll just say that I do not take pleasure in interacting with you (though I do so in the interest of clearing up confusion or educating when necessary) and will leave it at that. —Aichon— 09:03, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Yes my friend it was. I did not read the message of Rosslessness in which he warned me not to post IP adresses, before I reposted them. I then got banned for reposting them, while I had not readed the warning. I don't care what all the others here believe, because I know that I had not read it. Then my other argument still stands: I edited zyckde's personal page were I didn't know I wasn't allowed to. And now don't come with "that's not impersonation". It's a newb mistake, just like what some Jews try to let us believe here as well. And this is not a newb mistake as well. I'm really debating with Judas here. --Cornholioo 6:09, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Cornholioo, shush. We assume good faith unless we have reason to believe otherwise, and in the case of impersonation, wikinewbs get the benefit of the doubt quite often, especially if we have no reason to believe they know better, since it's easy to accidentally impersonate. In the case of posting personal information, however, we have no recourse but to assume bad faith, since there is very rarely a good reason for posting information of that nature. And the miscommunication was not why you got banned. See my previous comments here for why you were banned. —Aichon— 01:26, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Honestly, only Aichon got it right here. Ross's ruling is flat-out premature if not wrong, for Colonel has made dangerreport's edits before. Calling it a newb mistake is poor reasoning. He's been actively contributing to this wiki for close to a year now, he's supposed to figure out by now that you can't just edit signed comments. Your idea of a newb mistake is extremely lenient.--Thadeous Oakley 00:27, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- You can see stuff like 'ruined by the MOB' all too often, and you know that. It's EHB, but the radios and gennies have been destroyed by the NSU and others. That's a fact. The NSU destroyed 4 gennies and 5 radios. Ferals are said to have destroyed 4 radios. That is not POV, that's simply fact.
- Though, this isn't the place to debate who has destroyed the infrastructure and who has not. He has edited my message and that is vandalism. 'He has done only a minor bit of vandalism' and 'he tried to make it NPOV' is no argument. He has edited my message > vandalism. Simple as that. --Cornholioo 0:11, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Dude, un-highlight that vandalism. You are no sys-op, and you are not gonna score brownie points by confusing legitimate vandalism votes. (Not that the drama with which you flood this admin page right now is scoring you any brownie points in the first place.) --Spiderzed 00:22, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm White and Aryan. Don't call me 'dude'. I'm not black. --Cornholioo 13:26, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Hey, dude.. You're highly entertaining. Oidar 14:31, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm White and Aryan. Don't call me 'dude'. I'm not black. --Cornholioo 13:26, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Unbolded Corn's vandalism. --Thadeous Oakley 00:27, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm actually one of the ones that posts most of the "Ruined by the MOB" status updates around the city. We can back up our claims easily with maps that are updated daily (or a few times daily) to show which buildings are or are not ruined, as well as where our horde is located at any time. Anyone in the suburb can easily verify our presence, most likely because they are all dead. When we say we ruined a building, there is little reason to question what we have said, since we've built a reputation as being honorable, truthful, and damn efficient at killing everyone.
- Dude, un-highlight that vandalism. You are no sys-op, and you are not gonna score brownie points by confusing legitimate vandalism votes. (Not that the drama with which you flood this admin page right now is scoring you any brownie points in the first place.) --Spiderzed 00:22, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- In contrast, even before this came to VB, I had already heard a few people complaining about the nature of your edit, on the grounds that it was untruthful, and I've heard a few different people say that they have pics showing that the NSU wasn't involved at all. For your own sake, I would strongly suggest documenting any factual claims you intend to make, because if they bring evidence and you don't, it'll be pretty obvious whose story is true. —Aichon— 01:26, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- I understand your point. But this argument basically comes down on 'some people don't believe you'. I see LURCS has now also called us 'liars' again. It's a pity, and no I do not have screenshots where it would be better to have them. But no matter, we have destroyed those infrastructure, and I know we did that.
- Either way, undoubtfull is that he's not allowed to edit my messages. That's vandalism. End of story. --Cornholioo 13:37, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- In contrast, even before this came to VB, I had already heard a few people complaining about the nature of your edit, on the grounds that it was untruthful, and I've heard a few different people say that they have pics showing that the NSU wasn't involved at all. For your own sake, I would strongly suggest documenting any factual claims you intend to make, because if they bring evidence and you don't, it'll be pretty obvious whose story is true. —Aichon— 01:26, 1 May 2010 (BST)
I know a great place for cornhole to go shove it... -Poodle of DoomM! T 00:58, 1 May 2010 (BST)
If I am impersonating a user, then what is he doing impersonating the actions of my entire group, in fact if you look at the current revision he made, he indicates Streltsy did in fact contribute. If anything he was attempting to impersonate my entire group and in an act of good faith I corrected his error. Yes it was foolish of me not to just adjust the entire thing and drop my sig in, for that I apologize. Thad I would suggest you post pone from commenting on anything on admin pages not related to yourself as you only end up looking like a bit of an idiot and someone always brings up that little zerg list thing of yours ;). To Cornholioo I will apologize for any misgivings he may have had with said edit, it was foolish, but I can be the bigger man and apologize for it rather then baw about it. --
01:22, 1 May 2010 (BST)
Wikipedia is a Jewish organisation. It seems to be used by Jews a lot too. White regards, Cornholioo 5:57, 1 May 2010 (BST)
I had a big speech with angry precedents and huge claims about this case, which was hard to read. I know my word has less weight than most at this point so I'll just keep it simple: Aichon was right, this was vandalism, and (I hate hate hate saying or even thinking this but) I think there may be a bit of bias showing here... Just with this case though. No anti-op vendetta for me. Yet ;D --
06:28, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Exactement. Like I said; this is a discussion with Judas. Jews often hold eachothers a hand above the head. If I would've edited his message, that'd give me a nice one week ban, sure of that. In some way I'm glad this has gone as 'not vandalism'. Unmasking a Jew is worth a lot more than a little warning. --Cornholioo 7:54, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- If you had edited his message to restore your own, it would not have been vandalism and you would not have been banned. Simply restoring your own message is the standard response in situations such as these, in fact. Had you done what he did to you, however, yes, you would have been banned, since I think all of the sysops would have agreed that you are no newb when it comes to editing danger reports, which was the factor that split us with The Colonel. And, for all of our sakes, cool it with the anti-semitism. —Aichon— 09:03, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Read carefully; I said: If I would've edited his message. He is not a newb. He has edited danger reports before and is active here for a year. I'm active here for a few months. And even if he was a newb so what? It's still vandalism. I've been warned too for newbish actions. --Cornholioo 13:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- First off, you're arguing with me that he committed vandalism; I already agree with you. Second, you're missing an important distinction here: bad faith vs. good faith. You were escalated for committing acts of bad faith (e.g. changing someone's page so that it says the opposite of what they meant, repeatedly removing something from a page despite a sysop telling you to stop doing so, posting personal information, and removing comments from a page not owned by you). If a person meant to improve the wiki but accidentally made a mistake while doing so, we generally let them off (e.g. like if you went to help an old woman cross the street and accidentally stepped on her foot along the way). If someone purposefully committed an action that breaks the rules, however (e.g. like if you walk the old woman halfway across the street and then leave her in the middle), it doesn't matter whether they know the rules or not. It's vandalism either way. —Aichon— 00:16, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Read carefully; I said: If I would've edited his message. He is not a newb. He has edited danger reports before and is active here for a year. I'm active here for a few months. And even if he was a newb so what? It's still vandalism. I've been warned too for newbish actions. --Cornholioo 13:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- If you had edited his message to restore your own, it would not have been vandalism and you would not have been banned. Simply restoring your own message is the standard response in situations such as these, in fact. Had you done what he did to you, however, yes, you would have been banned, since I think all of the sysops would have agreed that you are no newb when it comes to editing danger reports, which was the factor that split us with The Colonel. And, for all of our sakes, cool it with the anti-semitism. —Aichon— 09:03, 1 May 2010 (BST)
I never stated it wasn't and would be more then willing to take the warning, as it was an error in judgment on my part. I was correcting an inaccurate statement made by cornholioo and as I already stated should have just changed the status all together to properly give my group and I suppose his some credit towards the events pertaining to Krinks power station. Though I would point out that this necessarily isn't favoritism rather then a not liking towards Cornholioo, and I would offer a word of warning to him that his above comment can be considered anti semitic and he should tread carefully. --
06:32, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- It's cool, I know and I wasn't directing any criticism at you personally. There are lots of precedents and lessons we've had on this wiki to support impersonation as vandalism even if it was just a mistake or in decent intentions. Honestly, if I had the drama gusto (and if it were possible) I would try and resubmit this with evidence but that's silly and would be even more annoying than my opinion of the rulings in this case. I'm not interested in causing drama. I just think this case had a really wrong ending. It doesn't really matter in the end I guess. -- 06:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- I'd just like to chime in here, because I think some of the sysops might not realize how they messed up, and perhaps an outside opinion can add a little perspective (or not). This looks like an open and shut vandalism case. At this point, I think everyone on this wiki can agree that cornhol is a big stupid fathead. And so, I understand the desire to stick it to him to try and make his experience here as miserable as possible. Actually, social sanction is one of the best ways to deal with a racist. If we collectively snub him at every turn, the guy will either leave or hang himself with his own rope.
- That being said, this does not excuse the sysops for making what was almost certainly a biased ruling. I'd wager that if anyone else had brought this case forward it would have resulted in a warning for colonel. I know we're talking about the rulings of sysops on a silly zombie wiki here, but the true measure of impartiality is gauged by how you deal with the people you least like. If you take an honest look, maybe you'll see that you had some emotional impetus in play. I know the ruling won't change now, but I hope that in the future the sysop team will do a better job of separating their personal feelings from their judgments, especially in making fairly obvious rulings like this one.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 12:53, 1 May 2010 (BST
- I think it's best I don't react on the first bit. Furthermore, I just want to say that this is exactly the reason why democracy doesn't work. Only the most experienced people should be allowed to vote in vandal banning cases. (Obviously, I am not one of them.) --Cornholioo 15:56, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- +1--Thadeous Oakley 13:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- I'd just like to chime in here, because I think some of the sysops might not realize how they messed up, and perhaps an outside opinion can add a little perspective (or not). This looks like an open and shut vandalism case. At this point, I think everyone on this wiki can agree that cornhol is a big stupid fathead. And so, I understand the desire to stick it to him to try and make his experience here as miserable as possible. Actually, social sanction is one of the best ways to deal with a racist. If we collectively snub him at every turn, the guy will either leave or hang himself with his own rope.
Aichon I'm sending you a message. Please check your talk page. --Cornholioo 14:54, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- No need to post that here, since I get the nice big orange bar at the top of my window whenever someone posts to my talk page. :P —Aichon— 00:16, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- It's about something you mentioned here. I thought I'd make sure. --Cornholioo 7:46, 2 May 2010 (BST)
