User talk:SpecialKCL66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, SpecialKCL66! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Do you...[edit]

Do you have legal experience? Sounds like you might. SpecialKCL66 20:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment here to a private talk page, rather than answer on an article talk page, because I try to avoid making any statements on article talk pages which might be seen as an attempt on my part to either 1) imply authority or 2) suggest I'm rendering a legal opinion. I do have a J.D. and have practiced for some time; however, there is much to the law, and for every little item I know, there is probably a dozen more things that I don't, LOL. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot?[edit]

Yes, I am a bot...

Ok no, but I am on a program called Igloo which allows me to revert edits within a tenth of a second after. What you did, refactoring another's comments, is a big no no in Wikipedia.--Talktome(Intelati) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceemow is still an active user, and he was making a point. He didn't repeatedly say he was a "rapist", but was trying to illustrate his point. Thus, the "don't refactor another's comments" still stands.--Talktome(Intelati) 00:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't made his userpage yet. See Katydidit (talk · contribs) 21,000 edits and still no userpage. Second, Igloo is only for vadilism and disruptive editsTalktome(Intelati) 05:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see your last comment. You can use your Watchlist and view your articles that you want to see the changes of.--Talktome(Intelati) 20:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

admin[edit]

Are you an admin? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No but I am the next best thing.(what ever that is..) anyways, an admin will come along there soon enough and comment, you are as you said right to just leave it and see what they say, the discussion is obstructive to the report. No worries, I thought you were doing well with discussion, edit warring is disruptive and it does need to stop so that you can get back to discussion, anyways, no worries, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aspiring admin? lol SpecialKCL66 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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. Looie496 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 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).

SpecialKCL66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking admin says I violated 3RR rule after I filed a 3RR complaint against someone else. I did not, and I cannot imagine how I could have done things more by the book. I would like for someone to explain how I could have proceeded any better if I am going to remain blocked

Decline reason:

Looking at your contributions here, you made something like ten reverts to the same article in the space of a few hours. That is textbook edit warring. It does not matter whether the content you reverted was the same in all or any of these instances. Because all are judged by the merits of their own edits only, what the other editor did or what you said to them is not relevant for the purposes of your block.  Sandstein  07:08, 24 October 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.

Sandstein, please look at that more carefully and note the actual Edit Warring page which states: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." If you look again you will see it consists of only 3 reverts in response to another user's edits of the exact same material.

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).

SpecialKCL66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

with all due respect to admin Sandstein, I do not believe he examined this very carefully at all as the 3RR rule on this is quite clear, and he accused me of 10 reverts, when there were only three regarding the disputed issue. If I am going to be blocked for 48 hours, all I am asking is that somebody take more than a cursory glance at the facts here and make more than a whimsical decision. And again, if I am going to be blocked, can someone please give me an explanation of how I could have dealt with Xenophrenic's edit warring in a way that would not have hit me with a 48 hour ban?? I've read all the rules, and when I was confronted with someone edit warring, I followed them as best I could, and somehow I STILL got reemed with a 48 hour ban. If I didn't handle it the right way, where did I go wrong? Thanks.

Decline reason:

I have rarely seen such a clear case of edit-warring, and of an editor who blames others for their action. We have a Be bold, revert, discuss cycle - that's how obtain consensus. This is a mere 48hr WP:BLOCK, and not yet a WP:BAN. During that time, I recommend understanding the policies I have linked to, PLUS the ones that have been at the top of your talkpage for some time now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 24 October 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.

"I have rarely seen such a clear case of edit warring." I find that extremely hard to believe. BWilkins still has not explained how I committed a 3RR violation, which is the stated reason I was blocked in the first place. I'm still looking for some admin to explain to me how I should have handled this differently and why there is such a completely galling double standard for how I am being evaluated and the other guy, who really did commit a 3RR violation. Is there some sort unwritten seniority rule going on here or what? Point out to me where I should have handled something differently. I'm aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, thank you. Someone was Bold, I Reverted, and instead of discussing to reach consensus, that someone simply reverted 3 more times (4 total). Point to me precisely where I needed to handle this differently. Again, I layed out the entire sequence of events below for your convenience.SpecialKCL66 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule

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).

SpecialKCL66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason for my unblock request is still extremely simple. I was accused by the blocking admin of a 3RR violation. It is simply FALSE that I reverted 4 times. If it were true, why can't anybody show me the 4 reverts? Because it did not occur. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392353070&oldid=392349077 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392359499&oldid=392358613 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392361130&oldid=392360772. There was no number 4. Period. There certainly were not "ten."

Decline reason:

I'm not sure why you've labeled your edit at 7:30 as "restore" as opposed to "reverted the immediately preceding edit by an editor you are at odds with". This does seem clear; if you are still confused about our edit warring policy, I see no reason to believe an unblock would help. Kuru (talk) 18:15, 24 October 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.

  • You say:"If it were true, why can't anybody show me the 4 reverts?" It was pointed out to you at the 3rrn board here. I "dipped your nose in it" but you chose to ignore it.TMCk (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guilty of 3RR? Can you show me which 4 reverts all reverted the same text, or anything close? I mean really?? I'm doing everything I can conceivably do to cooperate and work effectively on the issues I work on. On top of that, contrary to what you said on the edit warring page, I did warn the user that he was approaching edit warring. Twice. Please look at the talk page. What more could I have possibly done? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, can you talk with me about this over here? I mean this is really surreal to me. You acknowledge that Xenophrenic was guilty of 3RR, but he gets nothing? Even without the 3RR violation, his intent was clearly to edit war, if you follow the matter chronologically (I know that it's not really how adminst want to spend their time, understandibly). First of all, I DID warn him -twice - on the talk page, that he was approaching edit warring. On top of that, according to WP:3RR, as I'm sure you know, a warning is in no way required. Moreover Xenophrenic is a very experience user. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Meanwhile, I'm pretty darn sure I did not violate 3RR. The entire reason that I felt forced to file the complaint in the first place was because I knew if I reverted the disputed portion again (which Xenophrenic had just done), I would have violated 3RR. The Edit Warring rules told me not to edit war, even if someone else does, but to file a complaint and seek resolution instead. That is what I did, and I was trying to do things by the book every step of the way. Now I find out that somehow I get nailed, and the guy who actually did violate 3RR doesn't? Please look at the chronology of the talk page and the actual edits. You will see that every step of the way, I have tried to work cooperatively with someone who had no interest in either consensus or legitimate discussion. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I thought I'd just outline the timeline here for admin's convenience, including notable Talk Page edits. Also Looie496, would you please note where I warned Xenophrenic twice, in addition to the warning posted on his page, even though the Edit Warring rules state:

"A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a XXX template message on their user talk page."

Though admin Looie496 acknowledged Xenophrenic was edit warring and guilty of a 3RR violation, he let him off because supposedly he was not warned. Not only were 3 warnings issue, but the warnings were ACKNOWLEDGED by Xenophrenic. Meanwhile, I'm still quite sure I DID NOT revert the same thing 4 times, and I DID NOT get any warnings, but I got nailed with a 48 hour block? How is there such a whopping double standard???

I'm BEGGING someone PLEASE just look at the facts.

4:50-4:54 – Xenophrenic makes 1st disputed edits regarding already controversial issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392349077&oldid=392295653

5:21-5:24 – SpecialKCL66 objects/reverts, requests discussion on talk page, offers to redo the minor, non-controversial edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392353070&oldid=392349077

5:26 – Talk Page: Xenophrenic says his intent is to make things more concise http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392353340&oldid=392047172

5:39-6:20 – Xenophrenic re-imposes edits for 2nd time, suggests if I don’t like it, he may revert several days worth of non-controversial edits though he has specified no objection to any of them http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392358613&oldid=392353070

6:20 – Talk Page: SpecialKCL66 wonders how Xenophrenic’s intent is to make things more concise if he’s making it considerably longer. Also mentions weight issue with edits, as well as longstanding controversy on this page regarding the words “heavily edited” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392358600&oldid=392356001

6:28-6:30 – SpecialKCL66 again reverts, 2nd time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392359499&oldid=392358613

6:34-6:43 – Xenophrenic reinstates edits for 3rd timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392360772&oldid=392359499

6:43 – Talk Page: SpecialKCL66 notices and objects that Xenophrenic has been continually reverting his edits instead of waiting for some consensus on Talk Page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392360791&oldid=392360468

6:45-6:47 – SpecialKCL66 again reverts, 3rd timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392361130&oldid=392360772

6:47 – Xenophrenic undoes several days worth of edits, none of which he has suggested any objection over, almost all of which is minor edits, reference consolidation, grammar, sentence structure, etc., though there was a significant amount scattered in various parts of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392361174&oldid=392361130

7:06 – Talk Page: SpecialKCL66 objects to Xenophrenic’s previously articulated strategy of eliminating several days worth of non-controversial progress completely un-related to disputed issue if he doesn’t get his way. SpecialKCL66 warns he may be Edit Warring for the 1st time. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392363022&oldid=392361316

7:17 – Xenophrenic responds with heavy sarcasm and mimickry

7:21 – SpecialKCL66 notes intention to restore the several days worth of work and warns Xenophrenic about Edit Warring for the 2nd time. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392364440&oldid=392364141

7:27 – Xenophrenic Acknowledges Edit Warring warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392365052&oldid=392364440

7:30 – SpecialKCL66 restores the several days worth of minor edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392365343&oldid=392361174

7:45 – SpecialKCL66 again requests discussion of issues on talk page before making heavily disputed edits, goes to sleep http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392366784&oldid=392365052

7:39-8:40 – Xenophrenic again edits disputed section and disputed issue, 4th timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392371814&oldid=392365343

This is the point at which I held off on making any other reverts or else I would also have been guilty of 3RR violation, just like Xenophrenic, but somehow I get nailed for a 3RR violation anyway and Xenophrenic does not?? I just don't see how I can win here!

Xenophrenic - I just removed your comments to clear up the page for now. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beware that your activities do not seem like forum shopping[edit]

Hi, just a friendly note that it is perhaps best suited to confine your conversations regarding your block to this page. The multiple notes you left on multiple admins' talk pages may seem like forum shopping or "ask the other parent". Creating that appearance is unlikely to help your chances of being unblocked - and may actually hurt your chances or make other re-evaluate your block length. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a side note: I'm not saying you did anything wrong in reaching out in such fashion - I'm saying be careful. In the meantime, if you really do wish a clearer understanding of the issue, you may wish to read up on edit warring and The Three Revert Rule and the other topics mentioned above. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I'm already unblocked. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for the confusion, took a while before I got around to saving that first edit, hence the clarification and tips. Best of luck to you. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the consideration. Cheers. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any time, and thanks for your understanding... seems I'm also a day behind in my head (which I recently realized when signing a post for an anon) - which makes my post here seem even more ridiculous. Thanks again, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on Wikipedia editors[edit]

Hi, SpecialKCL66. Please review the WP:NPA policy. I am requesting that you remove or refactor the personal attacks you made against me in this edit, and refrain from similar violations in the future. Thank you, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the personal attack... SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I see a personal attack I'll remove it, but you'll have to point it out to me because I don't see one. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xenophrenic: Not sure if I see the personal attack in that link. Perhaps you provided the wrong diff? I also suspect that the admin who's page it's on is more than capable of commenting or dealing with it, if it is. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 02:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"as in the case of Xenophrenic, he scribbles nonsensical stuff on the talk page to give the appearance that he's trying to discuss things" is what he had in mind, I think. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean...maybe it is, I'll leave that to Xenophenic to specify, but uh...if that is what he's considering a personal attack, I'm not sure how to take that seriously. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what he meant. He clarifies on Looie496's talk page. And though I am of a thicker skin, I've seen numerous people who would consider such a personal attack against them. But, I think that's still pretty easy to deal with then. Since you apparently didnt intend it as a personal attack, and it apparently was perceived as one; a simple: "Sorry if you thought I was attacking you, that was not my intent. What I meant was..." may help end things. Even when my intent is the best, if my words misconstrue my meaning, I tend to take the blame for it (under the assumption that there was unintentional ambiguity in my wording) on that basis and re-explain. But that's just me. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's like suggesting that reporting someone for editwarring is a personal attack. I was describing exactly my interpretation of what he was doing. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See? Now it's my turn to apologize for lack of clarity (sorry). I'm not suggesting there was anything wrong with your intent - or even your wording. I'm suggesting that, assuming good faith, if your wording was improperly understood, that you should clarify to him/her what your real intent was... "wasn't meant as a personal attack, sorry if it seemed that way... what I meant was (same thing, different wording)" But of course, it was just a suggestion. I've found with such a varied community, people sometimes often misunderstand each other - especially since instant clarification (such as in face-to-face conversations) cannot occur, it's even easier to misunderstand each other or come to the wrong conclusions from what someone else has typed. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. Cheers SpecialKCL66 (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait. Yeah apparently that is what he means as I see from [Looie496's] page. Not sure I even know how to respond to that. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing problem[edit]

Hi. I saw your question at Magog's talk page. You used the format: <ref name = “hot seat”/> You must convert all to the format: <ref name="hot seat"/>, i.e. no spaces and the quotes should not look slanted in the edit mode. That should fix the problem. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is so weird. I was just messing around with it trying to implement what you said and showing the previews, and somehow it wasn't working. But now I see that you made it work. Maybe it's all the coke and heroine I've been doing all day (not really), but hey, I guess it happens sometimes. Thanks a lot, Doc. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was my pleasure. Don't mention it. Take care :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

For a new editor, you're very familiar with Wiki protocols. Is this account a WP:Clean start account? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are confused, AKA thinks you are a WP:SOCK of user:BS24. AKA has taken it upon himself to accuse pretty much anyone that is a new account of being a sock of BS24, so don't be surprised if you find your name here Arzel (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel is mistaken: SpecialKCL66 is the ONLY one I've accused of being a sock since the BS24 SPI. I do think you are a sock of BS24, and like him given to blaming other editors to an exceptional degree, forum shopping, putting POV tags on articles, Wikilawyering, edit warring, getting blocked (something that has never happened to me), repeatedly filing unblock requests, and repeatedly having them declined, violating 3RR (and subsequently denying it to multiple admins who jsut don't buy it), and blaming others for your blocks to a degree an admin in your case as SpecK has not seen before. In essence, a disruptive editor apparently unable to moderate or improve his behavior. I see an indefinite block in your future if cautions are not heeded. In other words, my suspicion is reasonable and an SPI seems inevitable. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf[edit]

A file that you uploaded, File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf, has been listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion because it is not an image, sound or video file and does not appear to have any encyclopedic use. See section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you feel that this file has a use in the encyclopedia, please place the {{hangon}} tag on File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf, then go to its talk page (by clicking Discussion at the top of that page) and insert an explanation of how the file is useful to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpecialKCL66&oldid=1143322025"