Jump to content

User talk:Republic of Texas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Republic of Texas (talk | contribs) at 03:46, 10 September 2010 (→‎Your statement to those at ANI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Attention:

This user uses an IP address that is registered to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, and may be shared by multiple users in the United States military. Because the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block shared by many.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.


About Me

Beware, this is a parody, but so is life. I'm 44 years old and work for the U.S. Government in law enfrocement. I am also in the U.S. Miltary. I am a Lieutenant Colonel and a military police officer in the U.S. Army. I often times find that I am the senior U.S. law enforcement official in many regions of the world. The U.S. Army and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command has world wide jurisdiction - every country, every person. If you are doing something that could negatively affect the United States of America or any one of its citizens, you are probably already on our radar. We might not get to you right away, but get to you we will. Now, that being said, I am a HUGE believer in civil liberties and individual rights. I hate the USAPATRIOT Act and I hate NSL letters. I think that EVERYBODY - and I do mean EVERYBODY (except for the crazy people and drunks) should be allowed to own and carry the firearm of their choice without the need to get any kind of state license or paperwork.

Just think of this for a moment. Think of all the shit that you see in your city. All the rude behavior, people being jerks, disresptful crap. All of that shit. Now think of a city in which everyone has the ability to carry a gun at will in any location. Are you going to drive recklessly and cut people off in traffic just because your 'running late?' Are you going to cut in line for movie tickets? Are you going to act like an asshole and treat everyone around you like shit?

I think not.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

What I think Wikipedia is about

A 2008 United Nations University survey of 130,000 Wikipedia users exposes a surprising profile: the average age of a contributor is 26.8 years (10 years younger than the average age of the general population in ‘more developed’ countries), 87% are male, and at least 46% are not university educated. Even with this relatively young age and education profile, 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts”.http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/ Since I try to view the articles as they would be seen by someone NOT a part of this demographic, I try to include information relevant to them. If these non-demographic members are searching for, say, Erin Andrews, why do you think that is? They don't care about her sportscasting "career" or that she once worked for "the Sunshine Network." They want to know what's up with the naked tapes, and the who, what, when, where, why & how of the matter.

We have got to remember - the people who edit Wikipedia are NOT the people who use Wikipedia. And if we wish to remain relevant and interesting, we must keep the non-user demographic in mind. Republic of Texas (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wifey's World

I've reverted you addition of their real names - see the article's Talk page here for why not. Tabercil (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I read that stuff. But to my analysis it seems to be nothing more than an 'argument' amongst sockpuppets on behalf of Kevin & Sandra Otterson. These people have put themselves out into the public eye. Their full names, dates of birth, current home address, and social security numbers are all out there on the internets. It is a famous website and I see nothing wrong with putting names to the faces involves. One would guess that if they didn't want to be personally identified then they probably should not have put naked pictures of themselves on the internet for all the world to see - including neighbors, co-workers, family, and friends. (And God Almight would I hate to be one of their children!)Republic of Texas (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter - if they do not wish to have their names on Wikipedia, we have to try and honour their request. This is from WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. " See the Flower Tucci article history for a recent example of this principle being applied to an article. Since there's just one reliable source so far for the names of the people behind Wifey's World and it hasn't been publicized further than that, I don't see how we can add it. Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that they do not wish to have their names on wikipedia? Have they sent a letter or something? I am not trying to be funny here, it is a serious question. Unless someone has proof that this is their wishes, it sounds like more of an assumption to me - and assumptions have no role in an encyclopedia, in my opinion. In addition, I do not see how such a thing can be optional. I am sure that there are a lot of people who have articles about them here who wished to have them removed, too. But personal desires play no role in an encyclopedia, as far as I can see. Regarding you claim of 'one reliable source', I don't see what that has to do with anything. The realibility of the source is the issue. And just because it is not constantly republished over and over should make no difference. I haven't seen too many news articles about Rudolf Hess lately. But he still gets an article here.
The fact that they might not want their names here is a 'so what' issue to me. If you don't want people to know who you are you probably shouldn't be posting naked pictures of yourselves on the internet for all the world to see. I am going to read those links that you put here. But, really, all of their personal info is already out there anyways.Republic of Texas (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've reverted your edit on Talk:Wifey's World and re-removed the statement you left on the webpage about their real names on WP:CIV grounds. Also, take a look at WP:BLP, which is the policy which is applicable in this circumstance. Tabercil (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how BLP is applicable. There is nothing that I could find within BLP that says that you are not allowed to reveal the names of people. Why are you trying so hard to keep these peoples' names off Wikipedia? I do not understand. Republic of Texas (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is clear in that it says we have to respect their privacy - if they don't want their name on the article, we pretty much have to pull it off. That's non-negotiable and thus the Flower Tucci edit I mentioned above. Now, on reviewing back, I don't see anything to indicate that the original people wanting the name removed were indeed the subjects of the article, and I don't remember any communication off-wiki on this particular article. So for now, I'll allow the names to stand. Tabercil (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding several policies you have broken,

WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and most of all, WP:NPA. This edit is completely unacceptable. You do not own the article, or the edits you make to that article; other editors are completely within their rights to revert you or alter your edits. I suggest you strike your personal attack calling another editor a fool and a douche, and learn to communicate in a civil and adult manner. If you can't, I'm bringing your behavior to ANI. We can do this the easy way, or the hard way, but your current behavior is unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with the above policies before continuing to edit here.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why am I the bad guy when it is clear from the evidence that the other people started it with their edit warring? Since I happen to be in Phoenix right at this moment and heard of his death firsthand on the local news, I know what the real deal is. You can follow along by listening to the news on the local radio here http://www.kfyi.com/main.html Republic of Texas (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about content, this is about your behavior, and your issues with ownership. You don't own your edits, and your act of calling another editor that name is completely unacceptable. Retract it or I can bring up your policy violations to people who will do something about them.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well when I put a lot of work into putting something together, I certainly feel that I do 'own' it - after all, but for my hard efforts it would not exist. So when some random dude comes along and erased my work I was just pretty steamed. Then some other dude claimed the sources were 'not good enough.' And yet, I find myself sitting in front of the radio listening to the guy say that Schimmel is dead. When you put a lot of work into something, you take ownership of it. That is only natural and it should be respected. I guess a part of the problem is that there is no way to have real time communication between all of the people involved with this particular matter. After I do 20 minutes of work, and then to see it all disappear for no reason, I got pissed. Republic of Texas (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't own your work on wikipedia, as clearly stated in the policy I linked you called WP:OWN. At the bottom of the edit window, you will find the following text:
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details.
I bolded the relevant details. You don't own your edits here, and you agree to that contract every time you edit here. I'll warn you one, last, time. Retract your edits calling another editor a fool and a douche, or I'm taking you to ANI.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, pissed or no, you are responsible for your edits. If something happened that upsets you, and you feel the need to insult the other person, stop yourself from doing so, take a breath, and talk it out civilly.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand the boilerplate legalise. But you know what I am talking about anyways. With regards to the 'retractions', I have already attempted to do so before you made your post and I realized I was in the wrong. I am just trying to figure out how to do it. Republic of Texas (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are also correct about being responsible for your edits. To be honest, this is the very first time a situation like this has happened to me. I was quite shocked when I found all my hard work suddenly gone for no good reason. Republic of Texas (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace 'douche', 'fool', and 'chicken shit' with '<personal attack redacted>', and then apologize to those you insulted.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and please do not forget about calling an admin's edits(bongwarrior) chicken shit. I'm heading to bed now, goodnight.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just left a message for him on his page. Thank you for your help here!!!!!
A 2008 United Nations University survey of 130,000 Wikipedia users exposes a surprising profile: the average age of a contributor is 26.8 years (10 years younger than the average age of the general population in ‘more developed’ countries), 87% are male, and at least 46% are not university educated. Even with this relatively young age and education profile, 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts”.http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/
I am 44 years old, with a Law degree for Harvard, and a Masters Degree in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. I am also a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S Army, so I get a bit upset when I see uneducated kids running around acting like they are in charge editing pages left and right.
I haven't exactly gone to sleep yet; I've just been tidying up things. That aside, however, it isn't fair to judge people solely based on their physical age. Everyone here is equal, and everyone here needs to be treated with respect and civility, even if they don't show it in kind. This is a collaborative project, and creating a poisonous atmosphere is only detrimental to the work being done here. It isn't fair to judge people just because you are reverted; read their edit summaries, read our policy. We cannot use original research, and all content must be verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. Especially biographies of living persons articles. Our BLP policies are very strict, so we cannot source a death unless it can be sourced to a reliable source; radio stations and blogs don't fall under our reliable source policy. Uneducated in this sense of the word, is in the eye of the beholder; sure, many of us haven't completed college. I haven't myself, I just can't write an essay to save my life, and I'm terrible at math when I have 3d animation on the mind(which I do constantly). College or no, many people here have put much time and effort into this project, much time and effort learning it's rules, and learning how to abide by them. Learning the importance of abiding by them. Learning why they must be followed.
On wikipedia, it isn't about one's background, it's about one's ability to write in a neutral manner, source statements and information to verifiable reliable sources, and when there are conflicts with other editors, discuss them out in a civil manner that doesn't devolve into mud-slinging(which of course gets nothing done but a block party).
I'm at least 20 years younger than you, by the way. I am not perfect, and I have had my fair share of blocks for incivility, but I am trying to change.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gioeli

Please see WP:PLAG before you edit Thomas Gioeli again. While you DID cite the source, you copied all the information word-for-word from the news article. Ishdarian|lolwut 03:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And please consider this an official warning about copyright violation. I have warned you before that copying and pasting from copyrighted sources is not permitted here. Note that if there is any repetition of these kinds of edits, you will be blocked from editing.
I will also reinforce Daedulus's comments about the need for drastic changes in your methods of interacting with other editors. This is utterly unacceptable. --Slp1 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if you didn't like the job that I did, why didn't you fix it and show me how you think it ought to be done? Just erasing something and claiming "copyright" doesn't solve anything as that just leaves the article hanging and incomplete. Republic of Texas (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you need to know except that copy and pasting copyrighted text is not permitted on WP?[1][2]And yes, removing the copied text is a very appropriate response to such a violation. Not that I removed it, of course, another editor did. It's up to you to comply with the policies and guidelines if you want your edits to stick and if you want to avoid being blocked. --Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I meant. What I meant is, why don't you correct the article and the additional info so that I can see how you did it and compare it to my work so I can the difference and what is perceived to be the correct way of doing it. If you just erase what I did without showing me what I was supposed to have done, then I learn nothing. Republic of Texas (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that a Harvard law graduate needs assistance in learning how to rewrite sources to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. If Harvard didn't help, it is hard to know what else I can offer. --Slp1 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figured you would respond as such. i don't believe it is plagiarism since I attributed the source and provided a link to it. I did not claim that the words were my own (which is the definition of plagiarism). But whatever. Republic of Texas (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have not read our policies about plagiarism or copyright violations. Copying and pasting a source without quotation marks is not permitted by WP policies/guidelines, or it appears, by Harvard's plagiarism policy. --Slp1 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Your comments

I did ask you to back off on the talkpage but you continue, your last comment about other contributors telling them to get a life is uncalled for and leaning on our civility guidelines, please discuss content and not contributors. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:137.56.163.64. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ishdarian|lolwut 06:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that guy is nothing but a vandal. But I don't see you trying to warn him off, kid. In fact, you did nothing. Republic of Texas (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're familiar with them, but maybe you'd like to read WP:AGF and WP:WARN. Please read these before attempting your next warning. Ishdarian|lolwut 15:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above occurred before my last warning to you, I won't take you to ANI for it, but you need to stop calling people 'kid'. First of all, you really have no idea whether or not the editor above you is a kid or not, and secondly, they are completely right. As I said below, -nothing- justifies going off on vandals; we have pre-written warnings that are not incivil, not rude, and not insulting. Warnings specifically for this purpose. You don't build a better encyclopedia by insulting everyone and their mother. You do it by working together, and if that means being civil in the face of insults, then so be it. I've really been trying told off of this, but you need to act your age, and stop insulting everyone left and right just because you read some article on a survey. Physical age or not, the editor above you at least acted the age you are supposed to be. They politely warned you, and you instead insulted them.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try this one, last, time

You say you are 44 years old, and have a degree in Law. Tell me, would you personally attack the opposing participant in a court room? Would you tell them to get a life? The same goes for wikipedia. You need to be civil, and not use any personal attacks. Both are policies, not guidelines, but policies; rules on wikipedia. Both need to be followed. If I see one more attack or incivility from you, I'm taking you to ANI. You need to check yourself, and treat other editors with respect, no matter what they do, or how much you think they deserve it. Poisoning the well kills the village.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unacceptable. Also, we don't take kindly to racial slurs, or racism for that matter, here. I recommend you leave your racism at the door.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to doubt you

With edits like these. You say you're 44, have a Law degree(from Harvard no less), and have been a commander(or some similar rank) in the military.. but with edits like the above, I am beginning to question such claims. Never have I come across someone of your 'history' who acted like the very people you're getting mad at, who can't understand why copyright violations are wrong, and how to write appropriately. English is a required course in any college for such a degree, and as I am sure you know(being a graduate), plagiarism is strictly forbidden. Being able to put your research in your own words, and not lifting text, is a requirement for any essay, or thesis, on any topic. Your failure to understand this simple fact just screams that what you have told me, what you have told us, about your 'prior education, age, and achievements', is completely false. Most adults I have encountered online do not use 'ur' in replace of 'your/you're', or for that matter, use the slang term 'lulz', which is almost specifically limited to 4chan users.

Plainly, you're not acting like a 44 year old, but someone here pulling our chains. Your demeanor does not at all reflect your supposed age, and education.

I suggest you get your act together.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I play a lot of online games so I picked up the slang. BFD. And, yes, I am immature for my age (as my ex-wife constently keeps telling me). I like the term "lulz" because I think that it is cool. I use lots of other terms, as well, that I think that are cool. So do not be alarmed. It seems like you are stalking me, which is kinda creepy and weird. Why are you so worried about me? Is your house in so much order that you have nothing else to do but worry about me? In any event, what I felt that I did was not plagiarism since I did attribute the source. You and I just disagree about that particular issue. But I don't stay up at nights worrying about it - I have too many other ghosts that haunt me.
I think that I have told you before to please stop stalking me. Republic of Texas (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Republic of Texas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

what's the block for? Some dude has been stalking me around wikipedia and i am getting creeped out by his behavior. I feel that cyberstalking is offensive and is a personal attack against the dignity & peace of Wikipedia, and i don't appreciate it much. i sure wish you would have talked to me about this first before rushing to conslusions.

Decline reason:

Phil Knight has explained below the edits and personal attacks that led to the block. Frankly, you were lucky to escape a block for the first one; but having been warned, you have made further attacks on a living person; in addition to the wording noted below, you compared him to Hitler and Manson, and made other, totally unsourced, inappropriate remarks. Slp1 (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Clarification of block

The block was applied for a number of problematic edits, including:

PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i get the first one. but the second one was a part of my argument for keeping the article in place. While it was an attack of sorts is was an attack on the credibility of the guy who was requesting the deletion (MacLean himself), which seems perfectly valid to do, as the credibility of the person requesting the action and their motives behind it are an important issue.
So why delete my ENTIRE argument for keeping the article just because you disagree with my position? You could have taken out the words flake and deadbeat and still left all the rest. (Since the guy has been sued numerous times for not paying his bills and been evicted, most people would consider 'deadbeat' a fair and appropriate description.) My position has just as much right to be heard as anyone else's.
regarding the use of the term negro, which is what I am guessing that you took issue with, it is a word that I have used all of my life and it is a word that is used to identify or describe african-americans / blacks / coloreds, etc. Negro is hardly an offensive term. Isn't there an organization called the United Negro College Fund in the U.S.? Republic of Texas (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am following you. Users who break policy again and again, despite warnings not to, are typically followed to see if they repeat the behavior. Given that you show no remorse about your behavior above, I'm taking this to ANI for longer review.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think that word is 'hardly offensive', you have much learn about the world.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess you take issue with the United Negro College Fund? The National Negro Health Movement? The Texas Council of Negro Organizations? The National Council of Negro Women? The Dallas Negro Chamber of Commerce? The American Negro Leadership Conference on Africa? The Council of Affiliated Negro Organizations? The National Negro Congress? Yes, I guess they are all bad people. In any event, Daedalus, you don't sign my paycheck. And you are a stalker. You started stalking me long before this issue came up. It is very creepy and inappropriate. Republic of Texas (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call it what you will; in the end, I'm not the one who doesn't act their age, I'm not the one who can't follow policy, and I'm not the one using such a word as a racist slur. You should be less concerned with me, and more concerned with your own behavior, and how you're going to change it when this block is up. Look at it this way; I won't report you for breaking the rules, if you don't break the rules. You can say all those organizations use the word, but that doesn't justify your use of it.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling it anything! I am not the one who makes the rules about what words mean and which words are 'bad' and which are not. If everyone else in the world - to include blacks themselves, think the word is 'okay', then who the heck are you to say otherwise? While you may personally not like the word, that does not change its meaning or definition. Negro is not a racist word. It is not the same as nigger. Not even close. While you can take issue with my behavior, that has nothing to do with what that word means in American society. And if you feel that I am breaking "the rules", then by all means, report it, and whatever happens happens. I'm a big boy. I can take it. But that does not have anything to do with your trying to make the word negro into something that it isn't. When you do that you do a great disservice to all negros or black persons who have fought for equality and who proudly use that word in the names of their organizations. Republic of Texas (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using to refer to a person in this manner is against the rules. If you don't like that, the door is on your left. I suggest you abandon your crusade to use it however you wish, and don't do it again.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, FYI, I was using that term to refer to that person specifically. There are TWO Alivin Greens. One is white and one is a negro or black. One is a doctor and one is not. Guess which one is the doctor and which one is not. (google them and u will see). I supposed i could have said "the black Alvin Green", but in any event there are two alvin greens. Republic of Texas (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement to those at ANI

This section is transcluded to ANI, so that during the duration of your block, you may respond to concerns raised there.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]




test

I guess this does work.

i will post a response after i get done working. I will be on duty in 30 minutes at 0900, which is UTC + 4:30 where i am at, so i won't be doing any wikip[edia stuff. Also, FYI, sometimes i access this via my phone, so that is why I use shortcuts like "ur" and 'U" and stuff like that and typos and I do not capitalize. The guy who complained about me (i forgot his name) made issue of that like it's something bad or whatnot. Republic of Texas (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]



ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incivility, personal attacks, and other problems from User:Republic of Texas. Thank you.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What a joke! i can't even post a response there cuz of the block!!! hahaha Regarding the change in my age, I guess I'm not allowed to have a birthday and then update my page to reflect the new age. Republic of Texas (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Republic_of_Texas&oldid=383960680"