User talk:Smallbones: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:24, 14 August 2014

So, naturalists observe, a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bit 'em;
And so proceed *ad infinitum*.
Thus every poet, in his kind,
Is bit by him that comes behind.
Jonathan Swift, *On Poetry: A Rhapsody* (1733)

Thank you

I've seen how much you hate paid editors, and continuously making an effort to stop them, I really grateful to have you here on English Wikipedia :D .--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 15:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aldnonymous: Thanks for noticing! It's always good to get positive feedback. I will correct you, however, I don't hate paid editors, rather it is paid editing that is hateful. It is tearing down a wonderful structure that has been built up by many volunteers, that provides good information to whoever has access to the internet. If that information is poisoned, and people can't trust us, then the whole structure may collapse.

Your post reminded me of a news story from a couple of decades ago. After the fall of the Soviet Union people started cutting down and selling copper cable from high power electrical transmission systems (nominally still in use). I don't hate those folks who cut down the cable - they were doing what they had to do to survive. I did hate the fact that the transmission systems were being destroyed. It just seemed like there must be a pretty simple enforcement system that would stop the destruction. Everybody likely knew who was buying the cable - these folks could be stopped fairly simply if anybody took the obvious steps. Similarly, most people likely knew who was cutting the cable or where to look to stop folks from cutting more. So the system was messed up, but the parts of the system that led to the destruction of the cable could easily be fixed. The actual folks who cut the cable, in my mind, were less responsible than the authorities who couldn't be bothered to take a few minimal steps. That's my reading in any case.

Thanks again.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was insightful, I'm the one who should thanking you (again :D), and... You're welcome.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion you might be interested in

This RfC about allowing role accounts may be of interest to you (there is also a discussion included about handling representatives of companies that you might be interested in). -- Atama頭 22:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Dorflinger Estate

Thanks for taking responsibility for a picture. I could not decide on which could be representative. Agathoclea (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to pick a different one. You know the site better than I do. I couldn't see how the commons link works until the pic was added. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OER inquiry

Hi Smallbones, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rossetti's Pandora

You might find this of interest. Rossetti's oil of Pandora will go up for auction on 22 May and should set a record for his work. I'm still wrestling with a broken arm, so I may not be able to create an article - though that's still a couple of weeks away, so we'll see. I did grab the image for Commons. I'm still typing one-handed so far. :-) - PKM (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! Thanks for this. There's plenty of material for my usual formula, e.g. British newspapers, the Sothby video, a V&A photo, the usual. But you'll have to breathe some life into it - perhaps the timing fits with the Rossetti-Morris story? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably use Water Willow (Rossetti) as a template to get it started ... But yes, lots of material, and there should be more news coverage once the sale happens... I'd love to tag-team on this. I'll see if my big Rossetti book has any good tidbits. - PKM (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

outline looks good!- PKM (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sotheby's site suggest that Pandora didn't sell ... - PKM (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrite

Mr 2001 has been told to stay off my talk page (with one exception - he didn't meet the conditions of that exception). I will remove any of his posts to this page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who was banned for running a paid editing service, and then comes back to Wikipedia to attack paid editors, is in no position to call anyone a hypocrite. As a matter of fact, that's precisely the problem that I have with your Jimbo talk page and Wikiopediocracy posts: they reek of hypocrisy. You do realize that, I hope? Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014, "Currently, Jimmy Wales believes that "Hell might be other people" is "Mr. 2001", which he (correctly) believes is me." and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MyWikiBiz#16_May_2014. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTC2

In the past I had been submitting complaints to the Attorney Generals in CA and NY, who are active on the issue. It sounded like you were filing them directly with the FTC and I was wondering if you knew a better place. I usually only report really overt cases - stuff like censoring properly sourced material. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't filed any formal complaints about paid editors anywhere off wiki, but do recognize that anybody who wishes to file a complaint has the right to do so. I may do so in the future. I don't think that the WMF or the community have any interest in preventing folks from filing formal complaints. WP:No legal threats might be interpreted as discouraging formal complaints, but I think the obvious reading of that is that you simply should not threaten anybody on-wiki or off- with the fact that you are contemplating a legal complaint. Rather, just do it without telling anybody except the FTC or other enforcement agency about it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea behind no legal threats is to prevent bullying and in that regard only the clearest cases of bad-faith should be taken that route. However, I do ponder if such complaints are a black-hole or not. CorporateM (Talk) 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM, who on their own page is quite open about their COI has whitewashed the Banc de Binary page, when it had consensus from several editors. Would it be possible to revert the page back to how it was yesterday when BlackKite lifted protection? User JohnNagle has already suggested it and I wanted to ask you as I am a newbie and haven't figured out how to do itHistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okteriel's edits

What are you doing with them? The community should confirm he is in fact a banned editor before ypu go around deleting his comments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When it is so obvious, you don't need to wait for what would be a very long procedure. I delete his edits, e.g. at User talk:Jimbo Wales all the time. Of course if he want to contest that he is a banned editor, he is free to do so. But in this case, in his response to my questions, it was very obvious who he is. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... it looks like they have a disclosed COI[1], but I have my doubts they are the same person. CorporateM (Talk) 03:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate WIRs

It is unlikely to work, but perhaps I am not thinking boldly enough. However, in my view, the role of a WIR is to improve articles, not police them. So imagine if 5 of the participating agencies each paid a fee to sponsor an independent editor. If any of their clients want their page improved, they can opt-in to have this sponsored editor write their article independently and without their input. If they find errors or other problems, they can go through the usual process for any refinements. If corporations could let loose of their corporate approval process and it has WIRs with a high degree of integrity, it could work, but those are two very high obstacles. CorporateM (Talk) 16:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about anything like that and would oppose it. Policing is not exactly what I had in mind, perhaps "Community watch coordinator", but if the WiR name doesn't fit here, just come up with another name. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putin khuilo!

File:Deputati UDAR.jpg

Ukrainian deputy in a T-shirt with the words "Putin khuilo!"

. Please post on the page.--78.108.83.124 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

question

about this dif. as far as I can tell, the document as it stands, at WP:COI, currently contains the WMF ToU and the enWP guideline. Also far as I can tell, the WMF ToU are also Wikipedia policy as per Wikipedia:Terms of use. So the document as it stands at WP:COI contains both policy and guideline. So.. I don't understand your edit note in the above dif, which says "(Everybody now knows this is a guideline, not a policy. No more discussion on it". Tparis has been less careful and less patient than I would have him be, but as near as I can tell, he is saying that a) yep the WMF have jammed policy down our throats but they clearly described a a way to overrule it; 2) the deep, good essence of Wikipedia is that it is a radical democracy and the community should be heard, as to whether to it accepts the ToU or rejects them. 3) on an even deeper level, if enWP does not embrace the ToU as policy it is very unlikely to ever be treated like policy on enWP - it is likely to just be ignored. I thought #3 was pretty profound. Like Lex orandi, lex credendi or the wisdom underlying "do what i say, not what i do". It is what we do, not what we say, that really matters, and an RfC to confirm (or deny) the ToU would certainly help it become the living, praxis-ed conensus, as well as the letter policy. i hope that makes sense. but i don't understand on a simple, factual level, how your edit note is true. Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI has been a guideline forever. There are means to make a guideline into a policy, but nobody has done that. Are we in agreement here?
The terms of use are policy. Guidelines are allowed to quote policy, but if a guideline quotes policy that doesn't mean that the guideline becomes a policy - just that the policy is a policy and the rest of the guideline is still a guideline. Are we in agreement here?
If you agree with the 2 points above, you agree with what I meant in the edit summary. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been, but there is no dispute about whether WP:COI is a guideline. There is a dispute about whether that silly box should be used anywhere, as noted on the box itself. And there has not been any discussion for some time on whether WP:COI is a policy.
As far as the WMF jamming down our throats the ToU changes - you have to remember the RfC at Meta where 1,100 editors (80% of the total participants) supported the new ToU. If anybody wants to make a technical distinction between meta and Wikipedia, and say that an RfC on Wikipedia with 100 participants can over-ride the ToU, then I'd suspect they are trying to force paid editing down the the throats of the community.
I definitely support having a well-publicized RfC that would allow the Wikipedia to confirm, weaken, or strengthen the policy on paid editing. I think that would be wonderful, and would show paid editors and reluctant admins what the community really thinks. I've proposed that at WT:COI. But a quicky RfC with a 100 participants would be an insult to the community and to the 1,100 editors from the Meta RfC who supported the ToU change.
What to do if admins refuse to enforce the new policy? I'm sure you understand that the undisclosed advertising that the policy is aimed at is both illegal and unethical. If admins don't enforce the rules and thus help to enforce the law, what should a Wikipedian do? Well, the best solution is certainly that the community enforces policy, but if the admins don't I'd guess that the WMF will, and if they don't it's every man for himself (or every woman as the case may be) which I don't think would be pleasant for anybody. I have no doubt that the law will eventually (and perhaps only sporadically) be enforced. Better if the WMF enforces it, best if admins enforce it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:COI is policy" is a TParis hobbyhorse with absolutely zero support from anyone else, and I don't think it has anything to do with the "disputed" tag. I was going to remove it myself, as it was put there because of edit warring by a small number of editors and should not have been deployed in the first place. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you on that Core. Thanks for replying smallbones; i hear you and i do agree with points one and two. i just didn't understand your edit note and suspected that it was written hastily. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it might have been a little off-point but at least it was accurate. I am astonished by the amount of sheer bullhockey that seems to be floating around the discussion of the TOU. "WP:COI is policy" is one. The other, which I see Smallbones just responded to, was that he "changed the policy." If this TOU issue or related behavior issues ever goes up to arbcom, I am quite certain that factual misrepresentations are not going to go over well. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I was mistaken. Smallbones' edit summary in fact was correct. He was referring to the language of the tag, which indicates that it is to be used only in a specific situation. Coretheapple (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Fourth!

Greetings Smallbones: I hope all is well with you as the 4th approaches. Wishing you and yours a safe holiday and many more marvelous photographs from you! Ellin Beltz (talk)

Somebody has edited what you wrote without any credible reason (see the WP page on Marx and Religion)

Dear Smallbones, I think your analysis on Karl Marx is more relevant than the edits that were later done to your inputs. Please look into the matter yourself. I could not help myself but revert the present version to YOUR original edit. I feel there is a POV problem in the current content. Your input that Marx's view on religion was ambivalent is correct, accurate, and impartial. I want your version to be maintained. Hope you would cooperate and check to see what is happening on the page. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong ID

Education in PDRK is not a Kohs troll. Be careful with your IDs. It is a troll, mind you, probably originating from Australia, if you catch my drift. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COIN

Hi Smallbones, would you please comment on this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GMAT Page Concerns

Hi there,

Not sure if this is the correct place to chat with you about the GMAT page but I just wanted to reach out to discuss what's going on over there. I joined wikipedia because I looked at the GMAT page and saw that it was chock full of advertising and opinion. The page needs a ton of work which hopefully I'll be able to support in a positive way. I have been deleting what seems to me is at best unsubstantiated opinion. But really it just looks like advertising. If you look at all of my edits there is no attempt to advertise anything. I do not work for GMAC. That's completely ridiculous. I'm not paid to edit anything. I'm not using wikipedia to promote anything. Again - I think that if you look at my edits you'll see that.

It looks to me that there are people editing the page for the benefit of certain test prep companies. You can see in the citations that there are a few companies that keep returning. Why? No clue. But it seems strange to me.

Also - the moment that I deleted one of TDJankins posts which promoted some test prep companies he sent me what I would consider a subtle threat:

Welcome to Wikipedia. You have recently twice deleted the preparations section from the GMAT page. Continued destructive edits may result in you being blocked or banned.--TDJankins (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe TDJankins isn't shilling for these companies. I don't know what this person's motivations are. There are certainly other people working on the GMAT page that feel the same way that I do about TDJankins additions. I'm happy to go with the consensus. It would certainly be nice to work together to create a spam free and informative GMAT page.

I'm completely new to wikipedia. I'd would be happy to be a positive contributor. Please advise on how to move forward. Deleteasaur (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Sorry to bother you again about this but I'm not really sure how to handle working on the GMAT page. I'm trying to delete blogs/test prep advertising but every time that I get rid of stuff the same people keep putting it back namely TDjankins. I've put all of my concerns on the talk page and it seems that most people (the few that are participating) seem to agree that the advertisements are an issue. Any advice would be helpful. Thanks in advance! Deleteasaur (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Evaluation portal redesign preview

Dear Smallbones - The Learning & Evaluation team at the WMF is currently redesigning the Evaluation portal! Before we take the next steps in the redesign process, we'd really like to hear your thoughts and feedback about the new design. You have been involved in evaluation portal over the last year and can help us design an improved site.

When you have a moment, please visit the link below for screenshots and more information. We'd really like to hear your feedback by July 21 07:00 UTC so we can incorporate your ideas or comments into the design process.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Boiler_room/Portal_Redesign_Plan/Community_feedback

Thank you so much! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Smallbones! Just wanted to remind you that we'd really appreciate any feedback on this by Monday July 21 7:00UTC. Thanks so much! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

Hi SB, just wondering why you are reverting the sourced content I added (my IP address changes up sometimes as I use a mobile device). Looking forward to hearing from you. 24.114.42.81 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a snippet

Thanks for your advice. Also, I stole some stuff from your'n user page. Further, I am delighted to see that you are a Roughing It fan, as it is one of my all-time favorites; it has seen me through many a stormy day in my own travels. Fourth, here's a snippet:

In those days miners would flock in crowds to catch a glimpse of that rare and blessed spectacle, a woman! ~ Mark Twain

Sometimes, I think a 19th century mining camp would be a more civil place than many parts of Wikipedia. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

We invite you to join Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Wikipedia (including gender bias in articles, in editor interactions, policies and implementation of policies) and take steps to counter it. If you would like to get involved, just visit the Gender Gap task force. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force. Happy editing, Lightbreather (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SEPTA trolley photo query

You clearly know the Philadelphia area better than I do, but I'd like to take a wild guess about one photo;

DanTD, I can't remember ever being very close to the carhouse, so this is just a guess. But I did take a tour around Google Streetview and Flickr. Belgians don't know the difference between South Philly and SW Philly. He did take photos from the train in north philly, likely Amtrak. And he must have had a fairly long stop over at 30th St. Station (just renamed BTW). Then he went south by train (to DC?), passing over the overpass on Island Avenue, right by the carhouse. Note that this photo is taken from above the level of the fence. About the only thing that Streetview shows from near the overpass (with a much lower view) is a concrete wall, that might be the wall in the photo. As I said, just a guess. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey S-bones. Being a Belgian-American I'm just curious about the mention of "Belgians don't know the difference between...." Are there alot of Belgians in Philly? ```Buster Seven Talk 23:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a cheap shot. Nobody knows the difference between SW and South Philly, except some in SP and most in the smaller SW Philly. The photog in this case was traveling through from Belgium (from his Flickr pix). There aren't a lot of Belgians anywhere are there? :p) Maybe in Brussels? There were 2 Belgians in my PhD program (out of 5). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for integrity and valiance in the fight against paid editing. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Coretheapple submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Smallbones as Editor of the Week for the integrity that he brings to the project, and for his yeoman work - unsung, unrecognized, unappreciated - fighting to preserve Wikipedia from encroachments by paid editors. He has been an editor for more than eight and a half years, and during that time has edited a staggering 11,337 articles at last count. He is not an administrator, heaven only knows why (too much sense?), but a content contributor par excellence, with in excess of 31,000 edits, 65% of them in article space. He is a generalist's generalist, with his top contributions ranging from Bernard Madoff to Media, Pennsylvania. But his prodigious talents as a contributor are not the only assets he brings to the project. No one has fought longer and more valiantly against paid editing. It is a great pleasure to nominate Smallbones for Editor of the Week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Smallbones

A Favorite Photo

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning August, 2014

A content contributor par excellence known for integrity and yeoman work fighting encroachments by paid editors.

Recognized for

Contributions ranging from Bernard Madoff to Media, Pennsylvania.

Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 16:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continuing concern over the issue and your calm, level-headed approach. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! It's always great to get feedback like this. Thanks Coretheapple and Buster7 Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Smallbones, just wanted to express my thanks as well for both for your contributions and your engagement with others on broader ideas with Wikipedia that I've seen on Jimbo's talk page and other spots. I often find it difficult to jump into those conversations myself, but I do read them, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased to propose this. Your contributions are tremendously appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Sunday August 17 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP).

2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor).

Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Klots pic of Schoellkopf

Hi --- thanks for adding pic and keeping Niagara County 100%!--Pubdog (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SCHOELLKOPF_POWER_STATION_NO._3_SITE,_NIAGARA_COUNTY,_NY.jpg

You stop, I'll stop

Smallbones, here's my ask -- you stop censoring my content on Jimbo's Talk page, and I'll stop asking you to stop doing that on your Talk page. Remember, Jimbo's speech at Wikimania said that civility needs to be our focus now. I'm asking you very, very nicely to just let Jimbo answer my questions, without you interfering. Thank you, and happy editing! - The Rewarder (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just follow the rules on Wikipedia? Since you are banned, that means staying off Wikipedia entirely. Why do you think you don't need to follow any of the rules here? Do you think you are better than other people? You are not. If you want to communicate with Jimbo, send him an e-mail. If you want to grandstand or advertise your business, go get your own site. That's right, you do have your own site, but nobody listens to you. Too bad.

As I've said repeatedly, stay off my talkpage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already threw down at this rodeo before, sport, you really want to have a go again? I reverted you 25 times in 24 hours and no one lifted a finger. This time, I can easily just re-post this user's comment/question as my own (with attribution, for the GFDL hawks) and you'll be stopped in your tracks, so either way, you aren't going to win. Stop white-knighting for Jimbo, he's a big boy. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Tarc you were lucky and several people noted it you didn't get a bloc and so was smallbones. The fact that you will repost on the behalf of a banned user means nothing and I will revert that attempt as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly free and able to post a question or comment on someone else's behalf. If you think you have the balls to remove something I post under my own name, then come at me bro. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:20, 14 August 2014 edit Unbroken Chain (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 32,193 edits →You stop, I'll stop ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:24, 14 August 2014 edit undo Tarc (talk \| contribs) 24,217 edits →You stop, I'll stop: - lol, someone's feelin a little high n mighty today Next edit →
Line 256:		Line 256:

	:::Actually Tarc you were lucky and several people noted it you didn't get a bloc and so was smallbones. The fact that you will repost on the behalf of a banned user means nothing and I will revert that attempt as well. [[User:Hell in a Bucket\|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket\|talk]]) 20:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)		:::Actually Tarc you were lucky and several people noted it you didn't get a bloc and so was smallbones. The fact that you will repost on the behalf of a banned user means nothing and I will revert that attempt as well. [[User:Hell in a Bucket\|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket\|talk]]) 20:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

			::::I am perfectly free and able to post a question or comment on someone else's behalf. If you think you have the balls to remove something '''I''' post under my own name, then come at me bro. [[User:Tarc\|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc\|talk]]) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)