User talk:DanceDanceRevolution

edit User talk:DanceDanceRevolution Start a topic. Press: + Is it an emergency?  Email  Archives 2007 2008 2009 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2010 H1 H2 2011 Q1 Q2 H2 MORE 2012 2013 2014-2017

noprotect

Ah, sorry. Have probably confused the dude who crappified the suggestion for the original authour. Think I shouldn't have done maintenance after staying up to kick off the crat elections -- Spiderzed█ 10:05, 1 May 2011 (BST)

you kicked them off early too... ;_; -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:57, 1 May 2011 (BST)

RE

Sorry, wasn't aware of BP completely supplanting RE for active crats. That this isn't explicitely stated on A/BP and A/RE, and that Ross had voluntary RE last time didn't help much either. -- Spiderzed█ 14:21, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Nah, it wasn't your fault, I tried convincing da crew into changing it back but I failed and then that happened :( -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I've switched the template again to hopefully clear the confusion since both your way and my old way can be sources of ambiguity. Also, Ross' RE should never have happened since he's exempt from them and we have no basis for taking action based on it (Do we demote him if he fails, and if so, how far do we demote him? Do we extend his term as 'crat if he succeeds? Do we bump back his eval date, which he's exempt from anyway, by another 8 months if he succeeds? Do we do nothing at all?). And perhaps adding a "Please note that Bureaucrats are exempt from the reevaluation process" to the A/RE intro template would be a good idea? I'd do it, but it's protected, and I'm too lazy to ask on A/P. —Aichon— 19:52, 2 May 2011 (BST)

With Ross, he was essentially demoted from crat at the time of the election, so if his evaluation failed, he would have been removed as a candidate. But, it was completely voluntary, and he wasn't going to fail, anyway.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:36, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It's not exemption, promotion to crat is a confidence vote and thus a show of faith from the community. It is a re-evaluation. So assuming he's not had some shennanigannery about jumping elections/demoted 'crats he should always have a current eval time. Then again, the 12 months thing needs to be changed to a 8 months really, simple fix for this problem as the implications of that were overlooked when the re-evaluation policy was under voting. The intent and expectation was that a crat was always having their seat voted on before their re-evaluation would otherwise trigger. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:37, 3 May 2011 (BST)

What do you mean by the 12 months thing? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:43, 3 May 2011 (BST)

“	3. If, for any reason, an individual Bureaucrat position hasn't faced an election after 12 months, then an election is called after that period.	”
—A/BP

If I remember correctly that was made policy after boxy went over a year without a vote due to Darth and Vista both demoting themselves or some such. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:48, 3 May 2011 (BST)

I'm pretty sure that it has always been in place. That was just the first (only?) time it has been triggered -- boxy 02:16, 4 May 2011 (BST)

It actually is an exemption, since the policy explicitly says, "Current bureaucrats are exempt from this review process due to their own review process." So, they do have their own review process, but the policy repeats a few times that they are not subject to the policy while they are 'crats. I do agree about the 8 month thing though. —Aichon— 01:54, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Semantics, the point is it fulfills the purpose re-evaluation does. Re-evaluation is inherently included in the vote.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:44, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Sure, but if you always display the next eval time, as you suggest, that means that you don't display the date that their seat is next up for election, which is far more useful information, given that it is something that will occur, as opposed to the eval, which merely may occur, depending on circumstances. Even with a switch to 8 months, it'd still only possibly occur. —Aichon— 02:50, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Misconduct

Did you guys rush a misconduct case through without me yesterday? :O I am both shocked and horrified.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:44, 3 May 2011 (BST)

We had a solid majority of 5 Misconduct votes (which with Axe's connections woes and some ops generally avoiding opinion pages should constitute for a solid majority), and we had Ross agreeing to the decision, so there wasn't really a point in further discussion. I had cycled it to have a permanent link to set up the A/VD record before that drops accidentally under the carpet. -- Spiderzed█ 23:50, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Feel free to rubber-stamp it, if you feel the need. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revenant (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 May 2011 (BST).

Ross voted no contest and set his account up to get ready for a ban and hiatus, no point holding out -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:22, 4 May 2011 (BST)

I demand the case is reopened! With me backing his corner, Ross'll get off scott-free! with a correct and just result. (P.s. Don't reopen the case).--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 15:58, 4 May 2011 (BST)

It's not unlike an A/VB case, just add yourself to the end : ) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:02, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Red Herring

That mongtarded userspace page is one: <°)))o>< No need to bite it. You won't win anything but well-fed trolls. -- Spiderzed█ 16:30, 4 May 2011 (BST)

True dat. Just not sure if he actually understands what he's talking about though. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:51, 5 May 2011 (BST)

I found you a thing

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 20:03, 4 May 2011 (BST)

thankx -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:51, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Bot status for User:Thegeneralbot

Hey, I've no idea what the process is for giving bot status but I was wondering if I could get the 'bot' flag put on User:Thegeneralbot, which is an account I plan to use for some of my semi-automated batch edits so that I don't clog up recent changes by making 10 edits per minute.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:55, 5 May 2011 (BST)

I don't think we've needed an official process for this yet. Just don't break anything, and make a shutoff switch, I guess? Probably worth doing a trial run or two to iron out the bugs, too.
I may well be needing to do this myself soon. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:53, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Currently all edits are manually reviewed, so I shouldn't break anything. I've built a shutoff button which allows you to quickly block the bot if it starts playing up. I'm working on some fully-automated bots which will include a shutoff switch for normal users.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:26, 5 May 2011 (BST)

I've updated it to bot status. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:31, 5 May 2011 (BST)

...

You know who I miss on this wiki? This guy. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 08:01, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Fuckin a. I've tried sort of following in his footsteps so his presence isn't lost on the tards of today but I just dont think anyone has that edge huh. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:40, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Were You trying for promotion or something?

Because if you were a sysop you weren't even trying. Like Mis. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:29, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Dunno what you mean unless you are implying I must have been sucking up to become an op, in which case I guess you'd be 50% right, though I was very keen on helping people out then (didn't take long for that enthusiasm to die hey). Or maybe you meant I WN'd an old user? I didn't realise he was an old user at the time because of the history purge and I couldn't view deleted pages then. Dunno what you're meaning here. Or regarding an offsite deletion request perhaps you found a link, was that an offsite deletion request? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:14, 10 May 2011 (BST)

I just meant that it was an old user. If you were a sysop you'd have been able to see the log at the time, all of the ones I posted on Misanthropy's page where he was a sysop. Otherwise this one is understandable up to the point where he probably had older contribs than he does now and he wouldn't have shown up in Newbie Contribs. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:20, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah. That was a few days, maybe a couple of weeks before I became an op so I wasn't aware. True he wouldn't have shown up in Newbie Contribs but I didn't use that, I just saw users with a new contrib and no talk page, a bit silly when you mention Newbie Contribs in hindsight. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:22, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Haven't had a chance to browse for precedent but did look into this specific case and you've got to fucking be kidding me. It's pretty clear that precedent aside you guys have no valid point, please just use common sense for once and see the blatant harassment for what it is. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:21, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Huh? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:23, 10 May 2011 (BST)

That "Huh?" took me 3 seconds. It would take approximately 20 for Iscariot to come here and ask for a crit 7 himself. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:25, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Except you know full well he's made it clear he doesn't want to be here or have his content here and are using that to try and make your point defensible. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:44, 10 May 2011 (BST)

He said he doesn't want to be here and has clearly listed a set of pages he wanted deleted. Does that make the other ones implicitly deletable? I really don't know why you and rev are being so butthurt about this, it's a pretty simple affair. He wants it gone, he asks. Unless of course the sysops decide as a team on a decision (hence the vote) and then we can carry on with that decision and prepare for the ramifications of whatever decision they make. As long as we're all in it together I don't mind. Seems you two do. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:19, 10 May 2011 (BST)

He did fucking ask. He's not obligated to come crawling before you in your throne of your mighty wiki-fiefdom and beg. If he has to, he can have it removed by due process of law – y'know, UK law, from the real world? Seeing as he, Kevan, and the server are all in the UK, it'd be a fucking snap. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:49, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Actually he is. And if he could do it so easily like a fucking snap, perhaps he should. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:22, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Only in your head really. We require a request and that the action be logged. No more no less.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:47, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Revenant, he really can't. The most he can do is request it like and have about as much ground as a baseless MPAA lawsuit over content they don't own. Mostly because he's the one that put it on the web open source and public. While I agree with the fact that it should be fulfilled as a request to him, and would gladly verify it if he contacted me the whole fake legal argument is just retarded. Please talk with someone who actually knows to law. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:43, 10 May 2011 (BST)

The Egoless Admin. Read. Learn something. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:50, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Maybe later. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:22, 10 May 2011 (BST)

You can lead a horse to water… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:36, 10 May 2011 (BST)

But it's really hard to hold his head down 'till he suffocates? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:44, 10 May 2011 (BST)

I'm just busy atm guys cmon -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:53, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Please do not recreate deleted pages

Especially pages requested for deletion by the original owner. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:22, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Please do not delete pages which you submit to speedy deletions yourself. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:12, 10 May 2011 (BST)

It was scheduled. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:53, 10 May 2011 (BST)

To the More Lemony Fresh

Ahhh... Gotcha. Well, hey, paranoia tinges the air like a fresh spring rain these days. I'll see what I can do for ya. ;) --Queen Mum 06:17, 14 May 2011 (BST)

oh please

Are you seriously trying to claim an accusation of being in cohoots with a vandal AFTER the case was closed is ou adding relevant input to the case? The rule was put in place because of nali and 2cool, among others, spamming A/VB with exactly what you did. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:49, 22 May 2011 (BST)

The rule was there before 2fail, its just the way it was imterpretted that has changed. For the record, I've never been against heavy handling of the rule, but some consistancy is all I would ask (glaring particularly at extraneous shitfest slung onto the page by rev in particular) so do it whichever way you want, ill just be fighting for consistancy throughout. But in the meantime, yes, there is nothing wrong or overly irrevant with questioning someones ruling regarding a case, especially since he and you both love doing it to others so ofteb. Pardon the typing too, using my phone as net is out. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:26, 22 May 2011 (BST)

To be absolutely fair and honest DDR I actually ask sysops to move my own discussions off the page after they happen, as was the case with spiderzed's case in april, as was the case with every such instance where it wasn't simple additional information regarding a ruling and even in some cases where it is. The main A/VB page should be clear and consice with immediately case relevant information only, with as few rulings as are reasonable(this habit of five or six sysops ruling on uncontested cases is bad). If ever I'm being inconsistent in defense of my posts on A/VB being moved by all means here's the rope to string me up with. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:45, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Not your posts. Others. Say, why are you kicking a stink over that small thing that IMO is totally relevant when Rev's been projectile shitting all over cases below in the exact same page? Is responding to my ruling with something how about I smell (I think thats what it was) relevant? 8 goons attacking every case with stupid for a month and a half? Again, I'm indifferent either way, they can both stay or they can go, but we should at least try and be consistent. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:40, 23 May 2011 (BST)

It's possibly worth pointing out that we will now be archiving the talk page alongside the main A/VB page, so moved discussion will still be in a relevant and easily accessible location.
(FWIW, I try not to move my own responses – I'd prefer to trust an uninvolved third party's judgment as to relevance).
ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:43, 23 May 2011 (BST)

It's always been like that... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:40, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Summarise

Cheese Misconduct case for me. I cant be bothered. --Rosslessness 20:04, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Same as the A/SD, A/PT drama regarding the off-site deletion requests. exact same thing, sept it was being shoved through A/M instead. the two usual suspects voted misconduct and everyone else voted not. oh and iscariot joined in the fray via revenant, threatening to sue kevan and stuff which made for many sighs by the community. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:40, 27 May 2011 (BST)

a Challenge

Hello, Mr. DanceDanceCounterRevolution. I, Ryu, the greatest warrior, would like to challenge you to a duel. In fighting games. You have a choice of Super Street Fighter 2 Super Turbo, Street Fighter 3: Third Strike, Street Fighter Alpha 2 or 3 or, if you happen to have a 360, Super Street Fighter 4. If you are interested then I will give you the details on how we will play them. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15:17, 27 May 2011 (BST)

I wish it was rhythm games... But I guess I shall accept. I'll go Street Fighter Alpha 2 because it has Charlie. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:21, 27 May 2011 (BST)

yeah no

Thatg diff was around for 22 days, that's enough to make it uncontested as silence implies consent. There was no edit warr until the first edit on the 30th. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:37, 31 May 2011 (BST)

but it got contested didn't it. then that edit got contested then that edit etc etc. making it the first contested edit. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:57, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Except it didn't. The user just added a group to the page. You can't treat it as if it was reverting past action justg because a group has a suburb in their name. No special precedent, no special treatment. The current agreed upon, generally accepted page edit is, and has been for a very long time, no DHPD. Until the DHPd says they are present again in the suburb they only exist in historical groups. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:20, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Not trying to give special treatment thanks. I read your stuff on A/VB after I posted here (the risk of having the same conversation in two places unecessarily). Lets keep the following discussion on A/VB please. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:40, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Not to flog a dead horse but Karek's side is the one with the least potential for abuse. If an edit stands for a significant period without contention, and is then changed at the start of an edit war, it's safer to revert to the edit that was there at the time the mess began, not the one that the mess changed it to - otherwise anyone could change an established edit anywhere on the wiki, bog the place down with A/VB or A/A cases, and keep their new edit during this time as you would have set precedent for treating the standing edit as the contentious one. It's why when we hold A/A edits in situ we do it with the page in the state it was before the warring started. 04:45, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Couldn't care less, we've made our decision as per A/VB which while I don't agree with it, doesn't mean I want the horse beaten harder on my talk tbh-- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:19, 2 June 2011 (BST)

it's fucking june.

time to put C4NT up for voting like we discussed.--User:Sexualharrison04:40, 2 June 2011 (bst)

I don't remember discussing it but, awesome, I dig that -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:21, 2 June 2011 (BST)

and i thought I smoked a lot of weed. sheesh--User:Sexualharrison14:55, 2 June 2011 (bst)

get cracking!--User:Sexualharrison20:35, 5 June 2011 (bst)

I didn't even play for them or anything, don't know why I should have the honour but I'll do it. Though I have my final major essay due tuesday week so I won't be writing anything eloquent for the wiki until then I can imagine. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:31, 6 June 2011 (BST)

is axe active again? --User:Sexualharrison13:55, 8 June 2011 (bst)

Not rly by the looks of it. Before I put them up, are you absolutely sure that they are inactive? They still have about 14 members on the stats list and the casual parts of the forum at least seem to have a minute amount of activity. any official word? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:12, 13 June 2011 (BST)

no response from any of the active members winkart and tosh. no recent forum activity. i left wiki and forum messages. c4nt was the very first group i joined in UD. forum activity is the rangers and the new groups that have been added. doooo eeeeeet! --User:Sexualharrison16:24, 13 June 2011 (bst)

i'm gonna change my vote to no if you don't put this up for voting soon!! poof!--User:Sexualharrison04:18, 23 June 2011 (bst)

Alright sweet I forgot about this. This arvo I'll be free, and then I'll write something eloquent and tear-jerking for the masses ;D -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:38, 23 June 2011 (BST)

1001 Days in Urban Dead

I win. --  RoosterDragon  08:37, 6 June 2011 (BST)

Oh dear god, amazing. You deserve that win. The bar at the bottom was such a good idea, and real mesmerising. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:30, 6 June 2011 (BST)

A note on blocking IPs

You might want to deselect "block anonymous users only" when blocking proxys - otherwise people with accounts will still be able to edit via the proxy.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:29, 8 June 2011 (BST)

I thought I had- fail. Thanks for that, I'll double check next time. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:20, 8 June 2011 (BST)

Edit Summary

Because the stuff in the () apparently disappeared. I was more referring to the fact that I had just been reading the Cyberbob A/PD where he argues about the A/VB boxes and wasn't particularly talking about that discussion other then mentioning that the context of the vote shows the majority opinion to be keep but only if it's kept temporarily while we transition it out. It wasn't a personal shot, if it were I would have said as much on the page itself or here. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:30, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Oh okay, sorry about mine then. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:31, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Just to clear things up...

My abstain isn't an absent-minded against suggestion, I'm actually for you being a sysop but fully think that whatever is said is pointless, given that there is no chance you will not be reopped. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 12:06, 24 June 2011 (BST)

That's fair enough, thanks for clarifying that, I thought it was more or less an against, not that I really would have had issue with it or you otherwise of course. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:20, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Neeerh, more a point against the wiki than a point against the individual; you've done nothing to make me think of you any less, and only things to make me think you're a worth while sysop. Mind you, I wouldn't get amazingly ahead of yourself, it is all subject to change, of course :P --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 12:29, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Thats cool. And don't worry, I definitely won't :) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:10, 24 June 2011 (BST)

I find your lack of faith… disturbing. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:33, 27 June 2011 (BST)

you should totally ban devilash for this insubordination. twice. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:26, 27 June 2011 (BST)

What I wouldn't give to watch a reality tv show where you were given sysop buttons Karloth... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:37, 27 June 2011 (BST)

cause that what we call them round here!

dude, just leave it as spambits. whats the big fucking deal? it's our inside joke. the page still functions as designed. i'm just going to keep reverting it till you take me VB and i really doubt that case would go anywhere. xoxoxoox still luv you tho. --User:Sexualharrison21:06, 3 July 2011 (bst)

If you really want to be that gay then fine, I won't stop anyone but the more it's forced the less funny it gets. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:02, 4 July 2011 (BST)

coming from the queen of the gays that means a lot. kiss kiss.--User:Sexualharrison03:48, 4 July 2011 (bst)

Actually I will. This is an admin page and this is your equivalent warning that it's not ok to change it on a whim because of a "joke". --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:21, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Unsurprisingly ditto.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 09:47, 4 July 2011 (BST)

eat my shorts.--User:Sexualharrison11:43, 4 July 2011 (bst)

Why would I do that, you sick and twisted individual?--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 15:27, 4 July 2011 (BST)

dohohoho

Because we don't really consider it a success? 16:32, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Aw man, my poor feelings. I'll go cry in a corner now. No, seriously. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:37, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Cool. 16:39, 9 July 2011 (BST)

It was me that was supposed to have done it too -.- and no one corrected me -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:42, 9 July 2011 (BST)

I forgive you. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:43, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Banned Alt Page Scheduled

Hey I was going on a janitorial spree and thought I'd tackle some scheduled deletion of banned alt user pages. For some reason it occurred to me to check the voting behind the scheduled and I noticed something. In the vote it mentions user page mustn't be linked anywhere except on A/VB or A/VB/B. It didn't occur to me while deleting to check what links here for the pages I deleted since it only mentions no contirbutions showing. Anyway it was kind of a dumb mistake not checking the what links here but really just wondering if these pages are still considered valid scheduled deletions. ~ _{17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)}

Well, some of them still have one or two occasional and meaningless links (obviously, else you wouldn't be here), but I would hardly press for a reversal. Maybe User:Hunk apple because he appears on Witch Hunters page, and it might be worth leaving the page there to demonstrate why he was burned as a witch? Just my two cents, beyond that almost all of the rule-invalidating links that go to those users are janitorial or referral links which we often have had the right to disregard when qualifying a page for a scheduled or speedy. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:30, 13 July 2011 (BST)

Alright, well there's loads more where they came from so if it is pretty much considered consensus that janitorial type links can be disregarded I'll just run with it. I guess if there are any other questionable pages I can just put it up on A/SD and if anyone else has a problem, they can kiss my ass take it to A/M. ~ _{15:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)}

Warning

Please do not vandalize this wiki with that stick up your tight ass. Continuing this behavior may lead to bad constipation.-JohnnyCakes 11:11, 17 July 2011 (BST)

That's not a stick, it's Cornholio's finger. 17:05, 17 July 2011 (BST)

wrong again! It's my hand. You're all meatpuppets. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:17, 18 July 2011 (BST)