User talk:69.181.249.92: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:39, 24 August 2010

Note to self: Things to tackle - Dragonriders of Pern

sar

This user is obviously not sarcastic.

THIS IP USER HAS BEEN REQUESTED WAY TOO MANY TIMES TO CREATE AN ACCOUNT!

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Technopat (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with vandalism

You should consider creating a (free) account, we'd love to have you around in the community. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm already a part of the community, just one without a registered account.

69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But rollback is useful for vandal zapping :P NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review User talk:76.117.247.55 and its archives. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 19:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

Greetings! It really looks like you've been stepping on people's toes lately... or are they all mad 'cos their team's not a finalist and they ain't got nuffin' better to do? Not even help clean up... Just a quick word of support - in the face of so much whatever-their-reasons-are - to the receiver of all their ire: Don't let 'em get to you! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... I'd say it's a bit of both. I do tend to draw a bit of ire from those who think that every suggestion is law (even when they're contradictory). Always nice to hear from you, and thanks for the support. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a cool IP editor...

		The Original Barnstar
		... and if you do not want to get a username then no one should bother you about it. Thanks for your recent changes patrolling! Blue Rasberry 03:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		A highly inappropriate barnstar prompted, on the one hand, by your moniker, on the other, by your positive contributions. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection Through Carnage

You redirected this album to the band's main page. I undid this, and I see I'm not the first. Before you redirect it for a third time, put some sort of effort into fixing it. Find some sources to establish its notability (there is already one there, allmusic, a reliable independent source, which makes your claim "fails notability" incorrect), or at least add the Template:Unreferenced template (actually, in this case, the Template:Refimprove template), or start a proposal for deletion (as the user MrMoustacheMM suggested when they undid your last edit). Read WP:BRD, and if your edit is undone, start up a discussion on the article's talk page. 72.37.244.28 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the WP:BURDEN is on those who add or restore information to ensure that it's up to WP standards. As WP:NALBUMS states, Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. A few stars in an infobox does not raise it to even this minimum. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the talk page stalking

I find the exchanges you get into amusing. Keep up the good work, homie. Millahnna (mouse)talk 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob - stalk away. Others opinions are welcome. Most experienced editors realize that my edits are usually valid ones. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever do create an account, drop me a line so I know who you are. But I might still call you 69. It tickles me. Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people, myself included, are amused by it. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an account

I see that you fight vandalism on here using an IP address, but having an account is will make it much easier for you as you'll easily get Rollback (which means you can undo vandalism with one click and at a faster rate), Wikipedia:Twinkle will also make your life easier as when you activate it, all the tags (like speedy deletion, afd, and all their specifics are at the top of you wikipedia bar) and now with the new pending protection, you can become a Wikipedia:Reviewer which means you can help make sure those pages are protected which you can't if you don't have reviewer privileges. You can get all this right away as you have good track record. Tell me if you're interested. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, that's a very tempting offer. Let me think about it. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming that's not sarcasm, I'd be happy to make the changes to your permissions if you create an account. Personally, though, I think it's more fun watching you get molested by random bots every day. :) Kuru (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no, it wasn't sarcasm, and what you wrote is just mean!

69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. BTW, I have thought up some really cool user names and I'll be glad to share (I have three already, haha). Drmies (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you really should consider making an account. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more details. I must point out that IP addresses may periodically change, which means you could lose all of your edits. For a username, I would suggest using the text in the captcha ;-) Happy editing! Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 23:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing this for years and have "lost" more edits than most editors will ever have. I don't keep score, so it that aspect bothers me not at all. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia appreciates IP editors as well as logged-in editors, so stay anonymous if you wish! :) Best of luck, Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 23:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you can see, I've got lots of encouragement to do so. Hmmm.... I wonder if I could register as User:Editor 69.181.249.92? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. As I stated, the captcha text sometimes gives good ideas for a username. And really, you could be an admin already if all of your edits were to be consolidated together... Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I doubt it. I don't have the temperment, the inclination or the patience. Although, considering some of the rogue admins around here, perhaps I could be... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you gonna get an account? :) Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to withdraw my suggestion to create an account.

THIS IP USER HAS BEEN REQUESTED WAY TOO MANY TIMES TO CREATE AN ACCOUNT!

But you already did. Anyhow, what do you think of this template? Sorry for sounding picky. mechamind 9 0 00:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion reminder.

When tagging an article for any type of deletion unless it's pure vandalism, it is extremely important to post a {{db-notice}} on their talk page.

In your most recent case, it would be {{subst:db-bio-notice}} as an article about a person that doesn't indicate the significance. Remember not to include the tt or nowiki arguments inside it. mechamind 9 0 23:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mechamind, thanks, but I think 69 knows that; they've been around the block. How are you doing, 69? There's a party at my house tonight, and there will be a ton of beer. If you want to quit Wiki early tonight, c'mon by. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Mechamind, I haven't yet thanked you for the box in a previous thread. Thank you! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! mechamind 9 0 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, though. I do insist after tagging a page for CSD that you go to the creator's talk page and post {{subst:db-a7-notice|Article name}} or something similar. Just the right thing to do...even though their article will likely be deleted anyway. mechamind 9 0 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insist away, but it's not going to do any good. I've been through this discussion many times under many different IP addresses and it always boils down to "it's recommended but not required." Even been to ANI once or twice... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then.

And I think the IP address should be allowed to be manually confirmed to move and edit semi-protected pages. You're pretty well established similar to an individual person anyhow. I'm pretty sure some administrators would approve. mechamind 9 0 01:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Galneryus albums

I object your edits to Galneryus albums (| here for example) since Galneryus as a Japanese music band has quite significant coverage in independent English sources (I found at least hundred). Although most of them are blog-like sites, this alone does not mean that the band is not notable. More significant sources are not easily obtainable as they are in Japanese. The same applies to other bands. Google before deleting. 1exec1 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to add sources to the articles - the WP:BURDEN is on you as the editor restoring content. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the fact that the article does not have appropriate sources cited is a problem of the quality of the article and does not mean the article is not notable.1exec1 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but without any evidence to the contrary (and I am under no obligation to seek it out) then it is entirely appropriate to redirect articles that fail the criteria. If you wish to improve the article then by all means do so, with my blessing. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking not about notability, but about quality of the article. Lack of sources is a matter of quality. Low quality is not a reason for deletion. Besides what do you think you'll achieve by deleting? Will the end user see the difference when I put something between <ref></ref> tags?1exec1 (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's deleting? I'm redirecting, which is specifically encouraged in the notability guideline. And yes, a reference is what gives an article validity, as well as being required by WP policy. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about material deletion. Also, redirection means moving and integrating current information to appropriate article, not just placing #Redirect on top. If you had done that, I wouldn't object. 1exec1 (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only info that might be worth integrating is the track listing, which isn't really all that noteworthy anyway. But sure, go ahead and do if you feel it's critical information. At the very least, you need to tag the articles you've reverted as unreferenced and notability-deficient. Or stop the dialogue and actually work on improving the articles - this is doing not much more than taking time away from both of us that could be used to improve the encyclopedia. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:DBZ power levels

The user in question has been blocked for repeated removal of MfD templates. However, a user is within their rights to remove warning templates/notices from their talk page; this is considered an implied acknowledgment of them. Please do not revert such edits unless the templates being used are expressly prohibited from being removed (such as block notices, unblock requests, anonblock information, etc.) Not only could it be construed as harassment, but also, depending on how persistently it is done, as edit-warring. I suspect your reversions fall under the heading of a misunderstanding and not any malice or genuine edit-warring, so I'm just offering this caution. - Vianello (Talk) 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the redlink, quite fair enough that. It still does need a rationale, however that ends up being provided. I was just bringing up mainly that it's the forum on which to discuss things once such a rationale is offered. - Vianello (Talk) 23:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, in case it was unclear at all, the MfD template removals are not what I'm talking about. Reverting those changes is correct, as they are expressly not to be removed. - Vianello (Talk) 23:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and thanks for the clarification. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Best of luck to you in all things. - Vianello (Talk) 23:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD tag

If you have tagged a page for subjection to the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion process, please follow through with the instructions and explain the rationale you have for tagging the page in question for MfD. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the IP in question has requested someone else to create the page, since they are unable as an IP user. - Vianello (Talk) 23:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Disregard everything that I just said then. Thanks for your help. ~~Vianello, can you show me the link? I can't find it on WP:RP.~~ I'll create the page then. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind posting your rationale here? I could then transclude it to the MfD page. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I usually place deletion rationales for AFDs on the article talk page, but for obvious reason that wouldn't work in this case.

Deletion rationale - There are many reasons for this to be deleted, but the primary ones are that this editor is using WP as a personal web hosting site for a table that has no useful purpose in the encyclopedia. It's unreferenced, in-universe fancruft that would never survive inclusion in an article, so it can't even be considered a userspace draft. Also, a quick review of the user contribution history shows that they have made no edits to article space, talk pages other than their own, or WP space other than to file a bogus vandalism complaint against me.

How's that? Feel free to amend the wording as you see fit; I'm a bit at wits end right now over this and realize I'm not being as clear as I could be. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks for your help. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the blind reverts made by User:Eddie Schluessel here and elsewhere. For whatever reason, this new user has taken the liberty of undoing the edits I've done today. If they actually understood any kind of policy I might be offended. Thank you again. 70.241.16.221 (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a line many years ago that seems applicable here - "Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance." Well, the word used was actually stupidity, but ignorance is less offensive. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanlon's razor. Kuru (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I always suspected it had a rather more famous origin than that which I knew... I really need to brush up on my heuristics. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Awarded!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Great job reverting vandalism and helping Wikipedia stay spam and vandal free. Látches ^{Lets talk!} 20:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (Much more of this and I will have to register an account, although I'll mourn the loss of my IP status.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Fifth Sun

I have procedurally removed the prod tag you placed on The Fifth Sun, not because I am opposed to its deletion, but because an article of that title - though about a different subject - was deleted at AfD in 2008. I opened an AfD and copied your deletion rationale over there; the AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fifth Sun (2nd nomination). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, whatever works for you, although I really doubt that an AFD about a different topic actually counts against the PROD. FWIW, I did check out the prior AFD. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Explain to me what i did wrong or different than any other person who put other unsourced material on there. I clearly am missing something. --Jesus1777 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a few references, like this one: <ref name="Genre"/><ref name="allmusic">{{cite web|title=allmusic {{{ Five Finger Death Punch > Overview }}}|publisher=[[allmusic]]|url=http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:dxfqxqudldfe}}</ref> [[groove metal]],<ref name="Genre">{{cite web|title=War Is the Answer by Five Finger Death Punch|publisher=[[iTunes]]|url=http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/war-is-the-answer/id329784544}}</ref> :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) All material is supposed to be sourced, so that argument isn't really a valid one. The problem with your edits is that you're removing sourced material. I realize you've posted to the talk page, but there needs to be some discussion and consensus before they can be changed. Genres are a bit tricky because so much of it is personal opinion, which is not supposed to be present in articles. Just wait a few more days, maybe bring it up in a larger forum, Wikipedia:WikiProject Music for example, and allow time for others to chime in. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article The Senior Rock: The Untold Story) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, he can't. He's not autoconfirmed. See above. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse, I actually DID follow the steps for IP editors. The deletion rationale is on the article talk page, and a request for step 2 is on the AFD talk page. Sheesh. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just put a big editnotice or other at the top of the talkpage saying "I Know How XfD Works" or something like that? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't create pages, and you might be surprised by the number of people who don't look at the top of the page. (Or even bother to read what's right in front of them anyway, in some cases.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Flag of Punishment. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --DAJF (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks-

Many thanks for reverting vandalism-RFD (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Flag of Punishment

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Flag of Punishment, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flag of Punishment. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Any chance you'll roll in the other articles about this band's songs/albums, since none of them meet criteria? <hint, hint, wink> 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have my blessing to add them--you know better than I how to do that! If only you had an account... Drmies (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thiiiiis close to getting one, then I run across comments like this and realize there's still a reason to stay an IP. Damn my allegience to the underdog! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You, IP vandal, have been blocked for continuing attempts to stick it to the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

ME! I'm the man!lulz :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 02:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, who else would like me to stick it to 'em? I'll start off gentle if you need me to... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got off scant lucky. Jimbo Wales was blocked for one second for disruptive ANing. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 03:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{For the record, and all kidding aside, I wasn't blocked - check the logs if you have any doubts.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page Mariam ship do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. みんな空の下 (トーク) 03:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. I'll let that issue go for me and let someone else settle with it. I did not know it... みんな空の下 (トーク) 03:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Quick corrections and apologies are appreciated. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I'm on a boat too now. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to provide fodder for your editing experience. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

If you do not self revert yourself at the Mariam article, I will be reporting you for violating WP:3RR. Egypt maintains a blockade on the Gaza Strip. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. Your constant adding of an improper and blatantly false tag could be construed as vandalism, and I'd welcome the chance for an admin to see that. Besides, it's rather moot now that other refs have been added. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt blockades Gaza. It is far from moot. See you at the noticeboard. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, this could be good. (gets popcorn)--intelati 04:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would call that incorrect tagging vandamalistic--or at the least disruptive. I'll be next to intelati, with a couple of (good) beers. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One a hour Drmies.--intelati 04:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate edit conflicts with you, 69, and I was really proud of my edit summary. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do share. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

intelati has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelati (talk • contribs) 04:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you saved me a trip to the fridge. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not only did you violate 3RR before my warning with 4 reverts, but you made a 5th revert after my warning. [1] 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you, once again, introduced blatently false information. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"was it blatently false? blatent? really? you are mistaken. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 04:37, 24 August 2010 edit 69.181.249.92 (talk) →‎WP:3RR ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:39, 24 August 2010 edit undo 174.112.83.21 (talk) →‎WP:3RR Next edit →
Line 270:		Line 270:

	:Because you, once again, introduced blatently false information. [[Special:Contributions/69.181.249.92\|69.181.249.92]] ([[User talk:69.181.249.92#top\|talk]]) 04:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)		:Because you, once again, introduced blatently false information. [[Special:Contributions/69.181.249.92\|69.181.249.92]] ([[User talk:69.181.249.92#top\|talk]]) 04:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
			"was it blatently false? blatent? really? you are mistaken. [[Special:Contributions/174.112.83.21\|174.112.83.21]] ([[User talk:174.112.83.21\|talk]]) 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)