User talk:MarnetteD/archive19

Problem user

I noticed you had trouble with user Logan Barek while editing Homicide: Life on the Street, where LB kept messing up the table with inaccurate info. You've actually reverted their IP edits also on this article, and I believe they are actually a user that has been banned under two other names for refusing to follow Wikipedia rules, improper posting of image files, disruptive editing, and simply putting incorrect information right back into an article after being informed it was wrong and had been reverted. If you see this continue to happen, please report it to AIV immediately. I do not want to see this user get up to his old tricks. Trista (user Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note I will keep a look out. Do you know who the banned user is? If you do then I can add a sockpuppet tag to their userpage. If not don't worry about it. Thanks again for your message. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly sure its Langston Bonasera and Rizzoli Isles. He was also using several IP's out of Manchester, England that started with 78 (several of those are in the Homicide edit history, as you had reverted his edits 4-6 weeks ago.) I think it's him because of the similarity in picking user names from fave shows (CSI, L&O & other crime shows), plus the tendency to simply revert any edit of his that is undone, regardless of why - and also not using edit summaries). There were several ANI/AIV discussions about him under those two names. Unfortunately, he's young and cannot be told anything. Cheers. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I definitely remember the "RI" name as a problem editor. Your vigilance is appreciated. Cheers of the holiday season to you and yours. MarnetteD | Talk 19:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't like having to be the witch & tattle-tale about this kid (around 16). But I tried, as well as many others, to help and guide him - to no avail. If not ignored, snotty messages back about us "pulling rank" and notes on his userpage not to complain about the (non fair use) images he was posting. But I'm tired of seeing Wikipedia pulled down with garbage like this. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't give up, does he? Under the "Detective Bayliss" name he's still so obvious. Check out all the stuff he's put up just in the last two days! Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Morricone

Yeah, I really dislike pointless, unreferenced comments like that and zap them on sight. As far as the weather is concerned, I have spent most of the past week sitting right here in this chair, wrapped in a blanket. So, yeah, you could say it is having an impact on me. How is life in your neck of the woods? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, I love Powwow Highway, but still have not seen Smoke Signals. I get all my DVDs from the local library, so I will see if they have it. I am looking for something good to watch whilst I am snowbound.

Did you happen to see the film cats I put up for deletion? I am not canvassing, but I would like to know your opinion on the matter. It seems to me that those who are voting keep are not addressing the issues I have raised. There are differences between categories and lists, and each has its place, but sometimes one is preferable to the other. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now this is getting weird. I have never been to New Mexico (except perhaps as a small child, when my parents visited family friends in the southwest, but I have no memory of it), but I am going to be housesitting out there for three months this coming summer. I will be about an hour-and-a-half north-northwest of Santa Fe. I am looking forward to it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will definitely be taking a long break from editing. Internet service will be bad at the house, and I doubt I will be going into Taos very much, certainly not just to use Wi-fi. It's just as well, really, since I need to spend that time writing. I am planning on taking 20-30 books with me.

Thank you for all the pointers about places to visit. It is appreciated! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I love the Milagro Beanfield War! I will have a 4x4 at my disposal, so I am planning on doing some exploring. Thanks again for the information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Television programs by season

Now, join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#Category:2010-11_Television_program_seasons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Silverado (film)

If or when you have a moment, can you take a look at this, the article's recent history, and my talk page comment? I would like to know your opinion on this matter. Just to be clear, I am not asking because I assume you will agree with me. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I am planning on taking this to the Filmproject, and I am glad you agree. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I may wait and do that in the morning, as I am not feeling well, and will probably be logging off before long myself. Thanks again for your comments, on this matter, and just in general. Enjoy the remainder of your weekend. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Pé de Chinelo

Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll find another hobby? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the humanities

No thanks needed. I happened to catch your comment, & you were right. Good working with you (if you can call it that ;p). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your response to my post

I am eager to see what others in the project have to say, but for myself I think it's a mess. Too much information all jumbled up together in ugly graphs. Better, as you say, to separate them. They could even be on the same page, but not presented in this manner. Thanks for your message. Have a good evening. I am going to drink some tea and rest, as I have a cold. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Film categories

Well, this was a bust. The worst thing about the admin's Keep decision is that valid arguments were raised for deletion that were never countered, and arguments for keeping were countered at every turn. I am not sure what action to take next, but I can assure you that these categories will continue to be filled with inappropriate films. I would put money on that any day of the week, and I'd clean up handsomely. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Just between you and me, I doubt I'd get far with messages at the FilmProject, since it was some members of same who were enthusiastic about keeping the cats and offered no concrete suggestions for keeping them free of inappropriate films. I am not sure what, if anything, I intend to do next. I find categories often more frustrating than they are worth.

As for my cold, a quick jaunt outside yesterday to complete some tasks has caused a relapse. I now feel worse than I did 24 hours ago. D'oh! Thanks for the kind thought, though. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

To quote Burroughs, paraphrasing Jelly Roll Morton, "I wish I had some whiskey." ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Zoë Wanamaker

Hi Marnette, I thought I'd give you a heads-up to a change an IP editor has made on the Zoë Wanamaker article. I started a discussion in the talk page about it, not sure if it's overly controversial but as you have been heavily involved in the article I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thanks and have a good day. Zarcadia (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hepatitis C virus

Hi, I think this is edit might need reconsidering [1]. The paragraph in question was sourced to a respected (and open source) journal. I concede that it is a primary source, but the science seems solid. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied here [2]. MarnetteD | Talk 18:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied there too :-) Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Musical theatre

Hi. I thought you might like to comment, either way, at Talk:Musical theatre, where an editor wishes to delete all of the ELs to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter

The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (disambiguation)

Hi. Just wanted to let you know my thinking re Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (disambiguation) and what I was referring to at MOS:DABRL. I look at it as a two part test. First, does the redlink also appear in some article? Yes, all three meet that test. Second, is there a bluelink "so that a reader ... will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term." I see you've updated Dougray Scott and Jack Palance, so no problem there, but Michael Caine still doesn't mention anything. In general redlinks can be a problem because if they're mentioned in several articles, which one do you send readers to, as opposed to letting them use the search function? I also took into account that the "Adaptations" article was listed at the top of the page, where all the redlinks were included. Anyway, I don't plan to do anything further, this is just fyi. Hope there's no misunderstanding. Station1 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for getting back to me. I'll take a look again a little later unless you want to go ahead. Excellent idea about leaving some kind of note. And enjoy your weekend too! Station1 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Finally got around to updating this. I added a hidden comment per your suggestion. Also found relevant comment from 2006 in talk page archive which I restored. If you prefer something else, please feel free to revert and/or improve however you think best. Thanks again for being so understanding! Station1 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Gutters and stars

Hi MarnetteD, I hope everything is going well in your corner of the wiki, I've been slaving away on film articles recently, but home to get access to some new books on all things Wildean soon. I'm just thinking of archiving my talk page, but have treasured your kind praise here, would you consider formalising it as a memento of our collaboration? Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your search for That Uncertain Feeling

Hi. I hope I'm not too late with this bit of advice, but I only just became aware that there are now two DVDs available of That Uncertain Feeling — a 2007 burned-to-order edition, and this 2000 edition from Roan, which is the one I have. Though I've never had any trouble with a made-to-order DVD (I was so damned glad to get Our Dancing Daughters or Break of Hearts, I didn't mind the one-off edition), I opt for the "real", pressed edition wherever possible. More to the point, though, is the terrific transfer on the 2000 edition: sharp, but lustrous, made from the original nitrate elements, and it shows. There are six available, five under $20 and two under $10. If you've already bought one, I hope it's this one; if you haven't, I hope you'll choose this one. Next time, I promise I'll be prompter on my legwork. Truth is — I forgot where your note was. Never considered it might be right on my own page! Hahaha! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks in OW

Hi MarnetteD, Thanks again for the barnstar, it's a real honour. I've sure you've seen this edit He seems to have linked too many ordinary words for my liking, but you are stronger on linking practice than me. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Flesh and Stone

I suggest you propose alternate verbiage, edit the lead, or tag it, rather than simply reverting. The very same references which support the generally positive response also support the questioning of Amy's trying to seduce the doctor. Read the reception section, it is mentioned more than once.

Wikipedia is collaborative. Either provide your own verbiage or tag what you find difficult rather than just reverting. If you simply revert the entire comment again--which I added to deal with the prior insufficient lead banner--I will treat it as edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The item in question is not standard to Dr Who articles lead sections. On its own the sentence adds nothing to the understanding of the episode. There is no insufficient lead tag on the article so I don't know what you are talking about there. The only edit warring that is going on is by you as per WP:BRD you have started no discussion on the talk page you just keep edit warring over a poorly worded edit. MarnetteD | Talk 03:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering the constant reentry of your edit over the last 18 hours I can now translate your message.

1. Collaborative = leave my edit in.
2. Edit warring = What I get to do when multiple other editors disagree with my edit.

Ah well you certainly aren't the first and you wont be the last. MarnetteD | Talk 15:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter

The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much...

...but it seems that my unscheduled return has ruffled someone's feathers. I made a mistake, was alerted to it, fixed it and, well, check the ANI board. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks yet again for the incredibly kind and thoughtful comment. Pardon me for not getting back to you sooner.  :) Warmest regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

vandalism and sockpuppetry

Hi. I have noticed that you have reverted a vandal on the page "Geography of Spain". This page is always vandalized by the same user, an anon IP. In fact, I think that this anon IP is nothing else but Menikure. This user has been already suspected of sockpuppet with other anon IP and Saguamundi, but it would be better to confirm it with a CU and to semi-protect the page. I don't know exactly the procedure, but you seem to know better the wiki rules.--83.196.184.46 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies but I am very busy this weekend and won't have time to pursue your request. You might try posting your concerns at the talk page for the Wikiproject Spain. You can also post warnings on the talk pages for the IPs that you suspect of being Menikure and then go to WP:AIV. As a last resort you might go to WP:ANI but if you go there you should have detailed examples of the edits that you believe are this sockpuppet. I am sorry for not being of more help. Good luck in your work here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 03:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Trey Parker

Sorry about that. I didn't realize the source mentioned her by name. I remember looking through those sources, and don't recall reading it, and since the passage didn't mention her name, I thought someone added it to the Infobox as a bit of NOR. Someone else reverted my edit, and I've added her name also to the passage. My bad. Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem?

Twice you have reverted my changes on the Audrey Hepburn page, with the notation "not the same thing". The page currently describes the character Holly Golightly as a "socialite", when anyone over the age of 14 understands the role to be a prostitute or call girl. So yes...it's not the same thing. The first time you reasonably asked for a citation, but then even after I provided one, you still took it off. Are you one of those historical revisionists or something? And what's up with the comment you left on my talk page: "(add warning - sheesh to come back after that long without editing and then make that edit is kinda sad)"? Davidfiedler (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I was 1000% in error many apologies. I only request one thing. When you create an internal link please make sure that it goes to an article that is relevant to the link and not a disambiguation page as happened with vanity Fair. I know that I don't have the right to ask this if you since my error was so egregious but it would be a help to the project. Thanks for you time and again my apologies. MarnetteD | Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Gregory Peck's religion

Hi Marnette. I'm also reluctant to add religious labels to biographies, but the text actually states (with a source) that Peck was a practicing Catholic, and the article is categorized accordingly. Favonian (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fury from the Deep novelisation

Hi Marnette; what's your opinion of the edits prior to yours here, which (I think) started here. Do the words "bumper edition" (whatever that means) require independent sourcing, or is reading the book front cover sufficient? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

beethoven

I think you should go ahead and add the films that use beethoven's 7th. It's absolutely relevant.200.68.69.125 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

IPs problematic edits

Please see this on AN/I, which may interest you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Olivier

"removing tags ... without discussion is not helpful. It can be disruptive" Lionel (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Your tags are parsing every little mention of his sexuality. MarnetteD | Talk 03:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who articles

Looking at your edits, you seem to have a WP:OWN and POV attitude towards the Doctor Who articles. Please be careful. Paul Austin (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. Try providing examples of the POV and what it is in relation to anything. If you have any items that you want discussed please take them to the talk pages of the specific article. Accusations like this indicate that you feel that no one is allowed to edit articles or protect them from editing that does not meet wikiguidlines or consensus who has ever edited them before. Your other option is to report to the appropriate talk pages and let others examine things. MarnetteD | Talk 15:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Leading Actress in a Play Tony Award section of revised.

I recently attempted to fix an error in the listings of nominees and winners in the Tony Awards section for Best Leading Actress in a Play. Any source you find (including ones listed in the articles below references (Tony Awards website, Internet Broadway Database, will tell you Judith Anderson and Katharine Cornell were nominated that year. Please revise it so it correctly states the nominees/winners for 1949. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharrington112 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your Actions

I am new to Wikipedia but I take offense that EVERY single edit I have made you have removed. No where have I read that EVERY change needs to also be verified with a source, some of the things you reverted are easily found information that you can easily look up and verify yourself, I'm not doing it just for you. I'm trying to correct mistaken information on Wikipedia and you are just a bully trying to act like no one new can add reliable information. Rharrington 13:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharrington112 (talk • contribs)

Try reading WP:SOURCES for one of the many places where it can be verified that info added to articles must be sourced. Your proclivity for editing as both a user and an IP is also problematic. A good place to start to learn how to edit here productively is here WP:TUTORIAL. As to your insluts you should read WP:NPA. MarnetteD | Talk 16:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah now I remember you also use the edit summary "edit error" which is misleading at best as you mostly put in new unsourced info. MarnetteD | Talk 16:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice that two more days have passed by and you are still tag team editing from an IP and your username. This edit summary [3] shows a real tendency towards bullying so you may wish to be careful about accusing others of this. MarnetteD | Talk 01:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that others have been giving you suggestions on how to edit here as well as the ones that I posted on the 24th. You are still ignoring these suggestions and that will continue to lead you into editing problems. I also highly suggest that you chose between this IP 72.24.231.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and this username Rharrington112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and only edit from one of them from now on. MarnetteD | Talk 01:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Spell check

Apropos of nothing, I had to laugh at your edit summary on Doctor Who. One of these days, they'll invent a contextual spell checker. In academia, we have a little game we play, where we look at how the spell-checker decides to re-spell names and juicy technical terms. It's a laugh a minute. Drmargi (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Goldie Hawn

Thanks for helping out with the recent edits to her article. However, I don't think the video is a copyvio because it's from the official Oscars channel. I was about to revert the edit, though, because I still think the information is too trivial to warrant inclusion, but you beat me to it. Just giving you a heads up in case the IP (who appears to be somewhat aggressive) challenges you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with placing a 'replace this image' photo?

I laughed so hard at your description of 'deprecated' baha! you are an idiot. that's better then no picture at all and obviously other users feel that way because they were up for some time. get a life and stop reverting every edit I make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharrington112 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on the was reached some time ago that they were not to be added to article infoboxes as they do not bring in any usable pictures so your adding them is considered tendentious editing. There may be old ones still up as they were grandfathered in but, as I said, the decision was that new ones were not to be added to articles and that is what you have been doing. You may also wish to look at WP:NPA as you proceed to leave messages and edit summaries in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 01:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well I'm going to quit editing since you seem to check my page daily and then erase everything I do, usually without explanation. ta ta. . (Rharrington 05:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharrington112 (talk • contribs)

You are exaggerating. I do not remove everything that you enter and I always leave an edit summary - something I note that - in spite of the several messages on your page - you have a hard time doing. It is a shame that you have not taken the time to learn how to edit here. I know there are a lot of rules and guidelines to learn but I think that you could have done so given time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipolicy

Hello MarnetteD. Regarding 1, 2, 3, you may wish to consult this before deciding on validity/wikipolicy (or the following alternative). Have an awesome day. --Aff123a (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly neither of the pages that you have linked to state that external links "must" be discussed on the talk page of an article before being added to that article. Also I am up to speed on both pages and in agreement with them. What they both point out is that others editors such as the two of us may remove any external links that any editor may add. On the other hand the hidden message that you were adding violates WP:BOLD among others. Also, we now have a huge number of articles that don't seem to be on many watchlists (I think due to editor retirement and turnover) thus, if an editor followed that messages demand, they might never get a response to their request to add an EL. What are they supposed to do then. Let me state for the record that I think that many of the EL's that you removed needed removing. Too many pages have become EL link farms. You will note that, with one articles exception, I did not restore links that you removed. Finally we have Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam to go to when there are problems with EL's that do not need to be here. They are part of wikipolicy - the hidden message that you were leaving is not. Welcome back to editing and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD | Talk 15:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This helps to reduce the amount of links being added. Especially when the page has already been flagged for a cleanup. The 'hidden message' is suggested by both pages I have linked to. Please review the template as it is a 'hidden message'. I consider this done. --Aff123a (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC) (I haven't been away from 'editing')

I read it the first time that you linked it thanks. While this template is better than the one that you were using there are still too many other policies that have to be taken into account for that page to be the final word. While you were adding your original message it to some pages that had become link farms there were some that weren't. One question - are you going to monitor each talk page that you add that template to so that you can respond on the talk page when someone posts there? If you disappear for months at a time as you have previously you will again have the problem of new editors being held up by a guideline that not all are in agreement with. MarnetteD | Talk 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

One other suggestion why don't you open a conversation about this at the "External links noticeboard" and if there is a consensus to use it than you can proceed at full steam. That will also mean that others will be aware of its use and you won't have to watchlist all of the articles that you add it to. MarnetteD | Talk 19:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Then this is not for me to discuss as the problem lies with the template and not me using it. Thus, I suggest that you discuss the implied underlying conflict in policy at the given pages. And yes, I removed this link as it is nothing more than advertising text (I nearly bought one after reading the junk on the page). So, enough time invested in to this non-issue. I am going to sign out with this user and proceed the endless fight against spam with a other user and will therefore not follow up on this. Rock on --Aff123a (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. 1) You aren't going to respond to any of my questions asked here. 2) You are going to remove a link that an editor of longer standing restored without discussing it with them based on your opinion of it. 3) Based on WP:IDONTLIKETHAT you are going to edit in a contentious manner against several wikipolicies. For the record I have been fighting spam far longer and on a more consistent basis than you so believe me if someone want to spam a page your little template is not going to stop them. Someday you may realize that Wikipedia is a community but it obviously will not be this day. Wikipedia survived in the 16+ months while you weren't editing and it will undoubtedly do so when you stop again. MarnetteD | Talk 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of getting on with it you are getting off on it. Discuss your big issues in policy conflict with the people who maintain the templates and not with me. The link does not belong there as of WP:EL. And no, this is only one account of several. Thus, for the record, mine is bigger than yours.--Aff123a (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait wait you are admitting to operating sock puppet accounts. Nice. And what is it with you trolls and size. It is odd that always seems to be important to ya. MarnetteD | Talk 12:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)