User talk:Enigmaman

If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. The same applies to you. If I leave a message on your page, I keep it watchlisted and I'll see when you reply. Thank you.

Minor thing

Hi Enigmaman, I had not seen the other NPAs otherwise I would have considered a longer block (was a bit rushed and thought an immediate response was good) but just so you know your comment on the block log: (01:31, 4 November 2009 Enigmaman (talk | contribs | block) blocked Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: repeated personal attacks after block. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cptnono&oldid=323559877#My_friend.2C_you_are_a_fool and more) (unblock | change block)) implies the personal attacks at Cptnono's page were after the NPA block when in fact they were before it. After your second block he did indeed make more personal attacks at you on his talk page so whatever the niceties the outcome of a weeks block looks right. --BozMo talk 21:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the first block should've been longer. He could've been blocked for his actions after the return from the first block, but it would've have been nearly as long if just for that. He attacked two different users with a variety of names in the linked exchange alone. Enigma^msg 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

UNBLOCK REQUEST FROM EARLIER TODAY

Hey, it's OK. Don't bother yourselves too much about unblocking that library IP. I was at the library earlier today. Am back home now. Thanks for your help and attention. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Stadium of Light

The world famous "stadium of light" is a football ground in Portugal. A name Benfica FC have used for their stadiums since 1952.

Sunderland AFC used the same name for their stadium in 1997. Why on earth, when people search for “stadium of light” do they get the Sunderland version?

Sunderland fans have completely taken ownership of the English translation, and have crudely differentiated their page from the actual “stadium of light” as they use the English translation and the original ground use a Portugese translation.

The fact being, the names are the same. And English speaking fans have referred to the portugese ground as “stadium of light” since the 1950s.

It’s reprehensible. Say, someone decided to create a building in Madrid with a Spanish translation of the words “grace” and “land”, and then take ownership of the word in Spain, on the basis that theirs is newer and is the local translation? And say “oh, your version isn’t the same, as yours is in a foreign language. Spanish people should be diverted to this version, even if they are looking for the vastly more famous building”.

The fact that fans are being diverted to the stadium who frankly nicked the name – just by claiming that Portugese people use the portugese translation, is reprehensible.

What about the billion English speakers, who use the English translation. Why divert us to Sunderland!?

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but what do I have to do with this? I edited the page a few times some months ago, and that's it. Enigma^msg 17:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: You should not have moved it without discussion. That's out of line. Clearly, there are people who disagree with you. You moved it and then came here to complain about it? 1)I have little to do with this. 2)You already moved it. What are you complaining about now? Enigma^msg 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you're interested...

ANI thread on that RFA courtesy blanking edit war on which you commented. Steve Smith (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, had his talk watchlisted. Thanks. I don't really have anything to say beyond my initial comment. Enigma^msg 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding the drama boards is generally a wise strategy; cheers. Steve Smith (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. One more comment, though: I'm convinced that Shalom is still socking at the present time. Not sure if people want to do anything about it. Enigma^msg 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't shock me. Steve Smith (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick search reveals this one, and it seems he's been using another account for his "other" editing. Enigma^msg 18:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

You should know, judging by how long you've been here, that I have the right to remove any or all messages from my talk page. Removing them from my talk page signifies that I have read them. You're an administrator. You should know this. If you don't, please read here. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this, and I never said you didn't have the right. But removing the messages, especially with rollback, is extremely rude. Enigma^msg 16:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's extremely rude because, frankly, I could care less for you at this point in time. Sorry. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's "couldn't care less". At least use proper English if you're going to be unnecessarily rude to other editors. Enigma^msg 16:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Both are correct, the former is slang relying on sarcasm. --King Öomie 16:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. It's not proper English. Most people say it because they simply don't think about what they're saying, not because they intend to be sarcastic. Enigma^msg 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As for your "last comment" on my talk page, do not make assumptions about me. You don't know me. Now, I would appreciate it if you would leave me alone and refrain from adding more comments to my talk page. Thank you. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make any assumptions. I asked you nicely to stop making improper reports at AIV. It just makes a mess for me to clean up, which I did. I warned both users for you. I also thought you might get along well with another user who reverts messages left for him. Enigma^msg 17:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you don't want people leaving messages for you, you should consider not leaving messages for them. You've now edited my talk page four times. Enigma^msg 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit War: The Pirate Bay

Well I was just changing the status of the website to "temporarily offline" because it was offline at that time! A user named JeremyWJ kept on undoing my changes. What have I done wrong? The fact that he kept undoing my changes made me furious to keep on undoing his changes. Moreover, who is JeremyWJ? It's not like he's the keeper of this website. Anyone can change any information on Wikipedia as long as it's not vandalism and if you start blocking people for that, I don't have anything left to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcadas (talk • contribs) 08:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Understand that wikipedia is not a place where we update on the status of something every time it changes for a little bit. With that logic we would have to edit, for example, every article of stores, restaurants, and such each night when they close for 5-6 hours at night. You misunderstand the meaning of "status". It is -not- about where the site is online right here and now, but its overall status. For sites that are still going (despite temporary downtime) they are considered Active/Online. All website articles through Wikipedia use this same rule. Again, refer to the talk page of The Pirate Bay, the talk page for the Website article template, and you can even check out WP:NOTNEWS for policy on this. Also this is not the place to discuss this, but I responded since you already started it here. As for who I am, I am just a normal user like you. I'm very active in the Pirate Bay and other file sharing articles. Just understand that although I see why you think it should have been changed when it was offline, you were going against general consensus, along with Wikipedia policy by doing so. As for why we -both- were almost blocked was because of WP:3RR. You are only allowed 3 reverts per article per 24 hours by policy. We both got out of hand, but I've been trying very very hard to keep that article from being changed to offline when it does go out. Understand that this site is nearing its final days and when people change it to anything saying offline they think the site is gone for good (with good reason because that is what it would should mean). JeremyWJ (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not up to me to decide who is "right" and who is "wrong". In the end, you're both wrong for gross violations of the three revert rule and can consider yourselves fortunate that you weren't blocked. Enigma^msg 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

:(

Alf left. RoryReloaded 11:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maximo V. Lorenzo article

Thank you for putting a block on the users vandalizing! However just after you placed the block, it was attacked by the same ip,

The specific ips/name attacking are-

Username: Hucastlaz "76.93.171.168" "74.105.38.24" "98.18.50.1" "98.18.38.11" "98.194.14.79" "24.218.151.129" "173.33.105.34"

I actually know who these people are, and they will get friends to vandalize the site, the main effort is by the 98 ip in georgia. I'm actually not good at this sort of thing so i appreciate your help!

ComicArticle (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected for a week. Enigma^msg 23:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it, but this has been the same people for months ( and i don't talk to them or instigate anyway ) so after the protection goes down, and new vandalism arises, I will ask for a more perm protection....Thank you for your work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComicArticle (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Before yesterday, the article had only been edited four times since July. Enigma^msg 23:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Xapxapxap

Any chance you could comment on this user's current unblock request? Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. Enigma^msg 02:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans, thanks for having a look. I'll try to keep an eye on them, since they seem prone to edit warring. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

He shouldn't have been reported to AIV, but obviously it's my fault for placing an improper block. I saw the warnings and the edits, but I didn't look carefully enough at the edits, and I didn't notice just about all the warnings were from one person. I wish people would use AIV for what it was intended for. Enigma^msg 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate you re-instating my account. I wasn't trying to vandalize. I also think Z's latest edit, removing all reference to MJ's push off on Byron Russell, is foolish. Most people visiting the Byron Russell page, this far after his retirement, will be doing so because of that play, which is one of the most iconic plays in league history. Anyway thanks for re-instating me. -Xapxapxap

Enigmaman, do you believe that we should assert, as a fact, that Jordan pushed off Russell? Maybe I should have tried some sort of dispute resolution process, but I'm pretty confident that Xapxapxap's wording wouldn't pass muster at a GA or FA discussion. (Not to imply that the article has ever been close to that level of quality, regardless of that sentence.)

In any case, I would appreciate it if you could at least put the page on your watchlist. Someone just made this edit to the page, but I don't want to end up blocked. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a very famous play. There are reliable sources talking about it. If it were up to me, it'd be in the article. If not to say that he actually pushed off, at least to point out that many believe a foul should have been called. Enigma^msg 05:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the edit, I don't see a problem with it. You have to understand, Russell is remembered by the casual fan mostly for that play. Enigma^msg 05:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, and I've never disputed that people believe that Jordan pushed off Russell. We could mention that in the article, if presented in an appropriate fashion. The issue is this: should we state, as an unqualified fact, that Jordan did push off Russell? Even though there was no foul called? The last edit says, "Jordan started to dribble right, then crossed over to his left, pushing off Russell." Zagalejo^^^ 05:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and before someone says something, I'm not User Team. People are free to run a checkuser on me to verify that. Zagalejo^^^ 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there will be a checkuser run. :) I think most would agree he pushed off, but I would say it shouldn't be worded that way. Maybe "appeared" to push off, which caused a lot of controversy in the aftermath, or something to that effect. Enigma^msg 06:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Overturned speedies

Yeah. You want to do it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly. I just noticed the DRV and saw several of the participants say it should be overturned and sent to AfD. Enigma^msg 04:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually admins take care of those if there's consensus to take to afd. If one doesn't, I'll either ask one to do so, or do it myself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV not the right venue?

I see you very quickly removed my report without suggesting an alternative venue. Where should it go? Astronaut (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP, but I handled it for you, so you don't have to bother. You shouldn't report those to AIV. AIV is for blocking. The IP can't be blocked anyway because it hasn't edited in days. Enigma^msg 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Disappearance of AE claim

Hey. The AE claim that I filed against MUA has disappeared from the AE boards. Any idea why this happened and where I can find it? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. The claim has since re-appeared and I have no explanation for its disappearance and subsequent re-appearance.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Something interesting I found today

This account working in conjunction with apparent IP socks, worked to falsify the information on bios of Chespirito (a show) actors and actresses. This led to the information sticking in a number of cases, because the account edited after the IP socks, and regular rollback of course simply rolled it back to the version edited by the socks. My recent contributions will show you where it stuck. Enigma^msg 05:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

An excellent example can be found here. --King Öomie 16:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting

this little tidbit. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't recall crossing paths with you, but thanks for the re-welcome. A Welcome Home as us old gutter punks know it is always nice to hear. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk Layout

Hey, I'm noticing a large amount of whitespace at the top of your talkpage. I'm thinking this could be corrected as easily as placing {{TOCleft}} immediately before the BLP notice. Just a thought =D --King Öomie 21:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go ahead. :) Enigma^msg 21:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Beautious =D --King Öomie 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI streamlining

Hello. The SPI team recently removed several of the more inactive clerks, to make way for people who have expressed interest in becoming active with the process. As some people who were removed have expressed no interest or wish to return to clerking, access to the bot functions have also been revoked. Of course, if you wish to remain a clerk, just readd your name to the list; but we do ask that you remain minimally active with the process. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

72 fortnights?

Is that a valid block time for 70.91.195.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. 13 previous blocks, including a prior block for a year. Enigma^msg 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Typically IP block lengths should ceiling at 1 yr (unless it's an open proxy). Also: what prompted the extension? They hadn't edited since the 1 yr had been put in place. I see you've done this on a bunch of IPs for no apparent reason. –xeno^talk 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed IPs with a long history of vandalism were getting blocked for 48 or 55 hours, so I've had to review a whole slew of blocks. Enigma^msg 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A good deal of the ones you reblocked with the peculiar length were already serving year blocks. –xeno^talk 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanksgiving_(United_States)

I note that you have undone my edits to Thanksgiving_(United_States), requesting Citations about food donation. Why? Markb (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. I suppose you can put it back, but I suggest you only use one. Putting it after every sentence can get a little annoying for readers. Enigma^msg 19:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

fair comment. Markb (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

before putting wrong warnings on someone page why not look.

You claim im in a edit war, I do not see where you think i am doing this i am adding this to the I am waring you not not place unfounded warings on my page thank you. 98.117.34.180 (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are engaged in an edit war. That is a fact. I'm sure you think your edits are correct, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't. Enigma^msg 07:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel you are harassing me now if you feel i am edit waring then get Another administrator to verify this and they do i will stop you are just angry and consider edit waring because i reverted your edit you can bolck me if you want all i will do is get another IP so that does not scare me at all. 98.117.34.180 (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're threatening to sock around your block? That's enough. Enigma^msg 07:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I've sent you a g-mail. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fun times

Anything you can do about This guy ([1], [2], )? Zealot, worked into a rage over his spam links being deleted, now abusing Twinkle warnings. --King Öomie 22:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Looks to be headed for indef. Enigma^msg 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. I love the guys who decide they know what wikipedia SHOULD be (usually in direct conflict with existing policies) and then scream to high heaven about anyone who disagrees. I'm surprised I wasn't called a fascist. Maybe I didn't let him go long enough. --King Öomie 22:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya, he needs sorting, I don't have my temps anymore so I can't warn, poss. future block. Second guy, scroll down to about 30th Nov and you'll see some genre changes, but I'm not sure if he's a cleaner or a genre troll... I shouldn't even be editing anymore. I gotta get away before I start editing regularly! Take care guys. Keep up the genre troll work whenever you have time. :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

They haven't been warned! Enigma^msg 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

UV/Gwarrior page

[3], [4], [5]

Christ's sake --King Öomie 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but wait a second! If that's not interesting then I don't know what is. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In other words, if that doesn't scream DUCK, I don't know what does. Enigma^msg 17:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally wasted but I'll try my best to reply: Let's see some progress here, E-man, from one of our active Wiki members! Report to WP:SPI (or whatever link it is) by you? :-) Have a good night! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[6], [7]- It would appear that Rock Soldier makes few to no edits in the same nine-hour span every day (depending on time zone, which he doesn't specify), and Greg D has no such downtime. In my non-expert analysis, something IRL is causing that dead space in RS, like bed (assuming Pacific time based, for sake of argument, on Greg D) or a job, and if those things actually AREN'T an issue and he's able to pull all-nighters consistently to edit as Greg D, it doesn't make sense to me that he never did that on his main account earlier in his account's history. It seems overly sinister to entertain the thought of him setting up plausible deniability for a sock not created until nine months later[8]. I understand there's an editing style overlap, but to me that doesn't account for this. Now if only Greg's initial response had been this, rather than tossing up a ridiculous CSD tag and riling the troops. --King Öomie 16:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A Watchful Eye

A new genre warrior- warned, damage control complete- need someone to be able to block if he decides to continue :P --King Öomie 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

blocked indef. Enigma^msg 22:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Enigmaman. You have new messages at Xeno's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re Barnstar

Hi

Thanks for the Barnstar! --5 albert square (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

From user page

I have warned gersracing about repeatedly removing referenced work in the Jimi Hendrix Cry of Love page and replacing it with his unreferenced POV several times. I then reported it as vandalism, whereupon I was told by (whoever) that "this site is only for persistent vandals - and advised to contact you? I would have thought his actions fit the bill "persistent"Jameselmo (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It said to report it to the 3RR board, because it appears to be edit-warring rather than vandalism. Enigma^msg 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Keshia Chanté

Please help that 99.248.83.188 user cleanup up Keshia Chanté - don't blindly revert them, the article is a mess. Materialscientist (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It sure is a mess. That doesn't change the fact that the IP's edits were inappropriate. Enigma^msg 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think they were inappropriate. They were removing an unsourced BLP violation. Woogee (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Errr, if that's all they were doing, they wouldn't have gotten reverted so many times. Look at the top of that edit. I reverted that, and I would revert it again. The edits were inappropriate, although removing the problematic material in the lead happened to be constructive. Don't know how it got in there. Enigma^msg 02:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this edit wasn't a good one, but I can see their getting frustrated after being reverted and blocked so many times for the valid edit. I wonder where they think they've reported? Woogee (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, sounds like a legal threat to me. I'll keep an eye on the IP and find out who added the bogus BLP vio in the first place. Enigma^msg 03:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would you do this instead of editing like your comments to talk pages suggested you should? Enigma^msg 02:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, don't look at my reverts and at the robot tags "refs removed, etc" - they were wrong too. Just click those refs and see for yourself. Another thing, I wouldn't semiprotect an article when "vandals" are identified and blocked. I wouldn't revert you too, thus let's talk first. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted by mistake. That I should have reverted my revert - no doubt, but I started to read the article instead and realized that one edit was just a hint - that its all rotten with allegation and wrong refs behind them - reverting one edit there won't help. (Woogee started to cleanup deeper now). Then I went to other editors and they all confessed that their reverts were blind, made at high speed. Nobody's wrong, hard to stop a sword in a fight, lets calm down and cleanup. BTW, me being admin is not always relevant in this case. Materialscientist (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Whats up.

yeeeeah I kinda left a hate message on that guy Jbimo8 or something like that on his talk page. He talked bad about my Miami Dolphins so I ripped him a new one. Please dont get mad. He deserved it. Im a loyal editor to Wiki.Stealthninja545 (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll let it go this time because you're so damn funny, but in the future, you can't attack people just because they vandalized an article on your favorite team or player or whatever. They'll probably get blocked anyway, as this guy did. Enigma^msg 06:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Danielwood8

Hi

I thought I'd point this page out to you because I'm not sure if you deleted it in error or not. It's just the last time I was editing his page I only saw some warning templates? I think I posted a warning template about Leona Lewis, I gave him a final warning owing to the sheer amount of vandalism that had been carried out. Just thought I'd check I hadn't done anything wrong?

Oh and thanks for protecting Leona Lewis :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything wrong. I was trying to add the temp category to the page and couldn't, so I just deleted it. User was blocked. And you're welcome. :) Enigma^msg 01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Scieberking

Hi, this user User_talk:Scieberking after causing the trouble at Pete Townsend yesterday is now leaving you are blocked from editing templates and causing similar issues everywhere he goes.. here . Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Even putting this aside, he's edit-warring on another page after being warned about the Pete Townshend article. Enigma^msg 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, he is not as yet much of an asset, perhaps it will help him understand, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure this stuff is indicative of deeper understanding ... Sssoul (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Off2riorob. I'd really appreciate if you stop doing personal attacks for instance "thank you for revealing your true color" and "he is not as yet much of an asset". Who are you to reach a verdict on me? I've been contributing positively on Wikipedia, whether inside or outside music. --Scieberking (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

question on sock block

User talk:TheQueenCorner is denying connection to CosmicLegg, and I must admit, I don't see diffs which make the connection, nor do I see an SPI or Checkuser case which does either. COuld you please post the evidence on TheQueenCorner's talk page so I can decline the unblock request? Thx. --Jayron32 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also User talk:Rickens appears to be a sock of CosmicLegg. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)