User talk:Liquidhelium/Archive 12

Re:Archive
You don't have the balls, Nancy-boy. 23:54, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION!!!

Nuclear bomb
Not to rain on your parade, but that nuc is rather annoying. I don't mind if its between you and some other user(s), but when it covers the screen like that it effects more then just you and them. If you didn't put it there sorry, and forward this message to whoever did. Thanks. 00:11, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Nukes
I'm officially sick of all the talk page nukes. They are obnoxious and get in the way of not only the owner of the talk page, but everyone who views the page. I'm not citing any policy here, but I ask you delete the template and ask others stop as well. 01:46, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * There appears to be something on the Yew Grove now. The problem with the nukes is that they create more stress for the nuke's victim if they didn't want to get one, and it adds new layers of complexity for those simply trying to view the page. As much as I support these kinds of things in principal, nuking a talk is just going too far. 02:01, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem remains that it leaves the door open to nuke the talk pages of those that are not interested in getting them. I've already made it clear I don't like content-lacking (aka "First!") messages because they distract from whatever I was doing before I went to read it. Nukes fall in the same category. 02:06, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it tomorrow. Night. 02:09, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * What if you or someone else was to nuke my talk page? You know I don't like it and I'm sure others don't, and I don't see why this would not suddenly become a new tool for vandals or trolls. 02:12, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it's weird how we generally agree on most political issues, but close to no wiki issues. 22:16, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I love how you're saying what I would otherwise be saying almost word-for-word, saving me the effort . 22:39, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm... Of course you can, and Iiii should already know it's not his place to mess around with your personal pages. 01:47, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was still working on replacing all the redlinks. I'm going to be blunt, some of the articles were crappy, so I fixed a few other things in the meantime. 14:21, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Re:*Poke*
What the hell does this have to do with RuneScape? -- 19:03, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * wth? -- 01:40, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thought something was wrong with the special pages. >.< -- 01:45, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Pets
Sure thing. We already has all the adult raven images, but we could ceratinly use the crab and the cat. And its good that you're willing to donate them because you won't get them back. I have a side business that creates a slurry out of ground up animals and sells it as an industrial lubricant and a disinfectant. 02:24, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * ^one spelling error, two grammar errors -- 02:27, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Artificial edits
If there's a crat that will give me a temporary bot flag, I would do that. But there are no "AWB accounts" that I can go to. 02:28, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have User:CookBot. I thought you meant in the immediate future.  For right now there's nothing I can do.  But I will ask Azaz for a flag.   02:32, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Libertarian views
I'll go through section by section (not that I have major issues, I just think it's more fun that way).

''On September 17, 1787, the Founding Fathers finalized the Constitution of the United States at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. At the time, the document was groundbreaking for its new form of government. Modern democracy was quite literally born at that moment in time. In the two hundred and twenty-three years since then, America has evolved in almost unimaginable ways. It has been at the forefront of the world for the latter part of the twentieth century.''
 * Minor note (this is more of a footnote, as including something akin to the following would be diluting the content and smothering the message in unnecessary information), the form of democracy selected (I'm limiting it to the republican democratic system to avoid having to go back to Athens) is heavily influenced by the British system (minus the monarch), more specifically by the already in place Briish parliamentary system, the Magna Carta and The Instrument of Government from the Cromwellian era. More specifically the idea of complete self-governance was revolutionary, (though many of the founders seem to have had little faith in the general populace as a whole...)

''The Founding Fathers intended the federal government to be small; in fact, they only enumerated seventeen powers specifically designated for the federal government in Article I, Section 8. The inclusion of the 18th "necessary and proper" clause should not dramatically alter that. Much of what comes out of the federal government today is completely derived from the necessary and proper clause expanding an enumerated power, most often the commerce clause. However, most of said legislation actually has little to do with such activities.''
 * Aye, this is what happens when special interests take power, we'll guarantee a corporate welfare state, a "social safety net", and allow the government an internet kill switch, but we'll be damned if we're going to cut back our bloated budget.

''European observers were impressed by those qualities, which they saw as woefully lacking in the old monarchies of Europe. The early concept of the frontier, first referring to the modern Midwest, then gradually moving West to the Pacific Ocean, has done much to unify early Americans.''
 * Well... to be fair, I can also argue that western expansionism and the Manifest Destiny doctrine in general divided the nation more than anything. It was the expansion that caused the debate over admittance of new free/slave states, the delicate balance of power amongst them which eventually flared in Bleeding Kansas and later the Civil War itself (not to mention the deaths of a few tens of millions of natives during this time...)

''Modern-day America lacks much of those qualities. The government is larger and more intrusive than every. Welfare rolls are ballooning. The government is on an uncontrollable spending binge. America has lost one of its most basic virtues: common sense. All of this was done at the hands of the liberals.''
 * That last line made me lol. As a libertarian, I blame both sides equally, the modern liberals for a woefully inefficient social net and the neoconservatives for an out of control military-industrial complex (and both for the increasing special interest influence on the government).

''Does America deserve better? Certainly. The Constitution should be applied to America as the Founding Fathers intended. Though certain steps are reasonable to meet basic necessities, such as the creation of an air force for defense, the Founding Fathers intended government to be a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. That means that the government must be transparent and responsive. The large federal bureaucracy today has many parallels to the large bureaucracies found in many classical and postclassical civilizations as they went into a state of decline: too large to support itself.''
 * Just a personal note: If I was around in those days, I'd of been one of the opposers (an Anti-Federalist) of the constitution considering the amount it dramatically expanded the government compared to the Articles of Confederation. Any way, lets see...nothing wrong with nation defence...for the people, by the people, etc. ...fall of nations... yep, looks fine.

''America has to recognize that challenge and it has to meet that. The only way to do that is to have common-sense small government representatives in Congress and in the White House who are willing to trim back on large government, and return more power to the states and the people, where it belongs.''
 * Aye, just not too much power to the people, or we go back to voting on civil rights...


 * Also, you might enjoy the weekly oped (of sorts) typically released on Mondays by the LP, fairly short about the length of a short article in the local papers.-- 16:55, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage
"What would the Founding Fathers think? They would certainly be devastated by the state that the country is currently in. America's beauty lay in its ability to repair its faults, in its ability of resilience, and in its ability to face its hardships. European observers were impressed by those qualities, which they saw as woefully lacking in the old monarchies of Europe. The early concept of the frontier, first referring to the modern Midwest, then gradually moving West to the Pacific Ocean, has done much to unify early Americans. Modern-day America lacks much of those qualities. The government is larger and more intrusive than every. Welfare rolls are ballooning. The government is on an uncontrollable spending binge. America has lost one of its most basic virtues: common sense. All of this was done at the hands of the liberals"

________

Oh, and the founding fathers would not be devastated that their country invaded another country based on lies and pure guessing? What about the fact that the government was spying on its own citizens? America's beauty is disappearing, thanks to the mining and oil companies that the republicans are literally in bed with, something I am sure the founding fathers would not be supporting. Or do the founding fathers only matter when they support your cause?

"Those who﻿ sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither." This, if you don't already know, is a quote from Ben Franklin. Can you imagine how Mr. Franklin would react if he met Mr. Cheney? Or John Yoo?

I do not know if you are a republican, though you sure seem to be. If you are, though, there are issues other then the economy. What about the environment? What about foreign policy? Even if republicans were best for the economy, can you honestly deny that Mr. Bush was a compete and total disaster when it came to foreign policy? Also, look at the golf oil spill. I don't see why this will not happen again unless we increase regulation, something I am guessing you would be opposed to.

Again, I am assuming stuff here, but are you proud of your party refusing to renew middle class taxcuts unless rich get these tax cuts also? The rich do not deserve, or even need, these taxcuts. Oh, by the way, those taxcuts are increasing the deficit. Or is that not something you care about?

Lastly, I do not agree with Obama on much of his economic policy. However, I realize there are things other then, and more important then, the economy. Voting for people other the liberals may be good when it comes to the economy, and I am sure you think this as much as I do. But, as I said, the economy is not everything and what choice besides Obama do we have? Can you imagine what a disaster Mrs. Palin would be should she be president? Or Mr. McCain, the man who sang bomb bomb Iran?

If you don't wish to debate with me fine, but for weeks now you have been making your political views known, and I figured I would respond. 19:48, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Continued...
I am going to make a new section for each response unless you object, as it makes it easier to edit and read.

''The invasion of Iraq was NOT based on lies and pure guessing. It was based on the fact that the best sources we had led us to believe that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons and was willing to use them. American's beauty is not disappearing. Ever heard of national parks? I do support them. As for whether or not the founding fathers liked that, it's anybody's guess, as we have few reliable sources about their environmental policy. ''


 * I don't buy that. Attacking a country with nuclear weapons, has, as far I as I know, never been done, nor would it be a good idea. If he had them, don't you expect he would maby decide to use them? That makes it even worse of an idea to invade, and I don't think even Mr. Bush is that stupid. Furthermore, even if he had nuclear weapons, whats the big deal? We have em, so does Russia, France, the Uk, Israel, etc. Iraq was never capable of attacking our homeland, nukes or not. Is it only ok for our allies get nukes? That doesn't seem fair. Lastly, I also don't buy that with all our spy satellites and stealth aircraft we can't tell if a country has nukes or not.

''And since when did we sacrifice liberty for security...? I don't like the PATRIOT Act, though it did not violate any liberties that I can find. (If you don't believe me, try and find any mention of privacy in the Constitution or its amendments). ''


 * Good, we agree about the patriot act.

''Yes, I'm a Republican. Bush was not a complete and total disaster when it came to foreign policy. I think he did a great job in general, including foreign policy. If the rest of the world is too entranced with the liberals to have much common sense left, then it's their problem, not ours.As for the Gulf Oil Spill, it was a chance event. Don't tell me you seriously support slapping unnecessary regulations on the oil companies over an isolated incident like this. Do you know how much regulation costs? Do you know how big the bureaucracy is going to get? And we're already over $10 trillion in debt. ''


 * He invaded a country based on at the very least false evidence. He tortured people, many of whom had done nothing to America or her troops. 9/11 happened on his watch, it was his duty to stop it and he failed. In the process of invading Iraq, he strengthened Iran. Now Iran really does have a real nuclear reactor, and our hands are tied behind our backs when it comes to doing anything about it. Israel, too, is unable to act and thus Iran has a so far, peaceful nuclear program. Do you think that would happen if Mr. Hussein was still around? Iraq and Iran hated each other, and if Iran began moving toward nukes Iraq would be right there with us and Israel against them. And what about North Korea? Mr. Bush was unable to stop them from testing a nuclear weapon. What about Hezbollah? They were able to launch rocket afte rocket into Israel, and kept em coming till the final day of the war.

All the middle eastern problems, whether it be Iran, Iraq, Al'Qaeda, Hezbollah, or Hamas are all caused by Israel. It is necessary, for our national security, to have peace. We started this mess by more or less creating Israel. We cannot go back in time and un-do that, but we must work as hard as possible to reach some sort of peace deal. This is something Mr. Bush halfheartedly tried. Obama is better then Bush here, though he is doing far less then he should.

''I support tax cuts for everybody. And, I also support cutting spending so that the deficit doesn't go up. The idea that we have to tax people to get over our financial woes is completely ridiculous. There are other, and much better ways to do it. We waste so much money in our bloated bureaucracy that cutting a third of government agencies would do wonders.''
 * What agencies?

''I would not support Palin in the primaries. I don't really like her attitude, and don't think she can be a successful candidate. But, if fate blows her way, then I would vote for her in the general election, since any Republican is better than Obama. McCain was one of the best candidates that the GOP has ever fielded. It's a shame he lost, but 2008 was not a GOP year. Also, the economy is everything. You can't do anything without money. Period. If we have a poor economy, then how do you expect to get things like climate change legislation through? In a poor economy, forcing people to use more expensive energy is a terrible idea. And, in a poor economy, the money needed for scientific research isn't there. In a poor economy, America loses its standing in the world. The economy is the single largest determinant of the United States's position in the world.''
 * Palin is a clown. She is another Bush, and would lead us into the exact trap bush did. I don't know what to think of McCain- he seemed ok at first, and then became unpredictable and downright strange during the campaign. The economy is something both parties can handle. Reagan was successful, and he was a republican. FDR, a democrat, ended the great depression.

_____
''Attacking a country with nuclear weapons has never been done? I suppose that depends on your definition of attack. For one thing, the US blockaded Cuba (and ran a few airstrikes over the island) in the Cuban missile crisis in 1961. Cuba had operational missile launching stands loaded with nuclear weapons. Then, terrorists attacked the US in 2001. I'd say we qualify as a country with nuclear weapons. Now, as for Saddam Hussein using nuclear weapons, that's not something we have to worry about much. Iraq doesn't have the technology to launch a missile to any place important. "Is it only ok for our allies get nukes? That doesn't seem fair." Life isn't fair. Get over it. It's a national security issue if too many of our enemies get nuclear weapons. And since when did people store nuclear weapons above ground? Our spy aircraft aren't good enough to see below the ground. ''


 * Those missiles were from the Soviets. I don't think Cuba could launch them without Soviet permission and support. The 9/11 attacks were not done by a state, thus not part of the topic. By the "life isn't fair, (there for we don't have to obey any rules)" argument, Al'Qaeda attacking civilian buildings is perfectly ok, as is Iran attacking Israel out of the blue. What about national security issues for others? I'm sure Iran sees Israel as a national security issue, and yet they are somehow not justified in attacking first. You cannot have an entire country underground: satellites will see trucks coming and leaving, radioactive waists being removed, silos being created, etc.

''False evidence, maybe, but it was justified, as Bush should not be blamed for the accuracy of the reports he received. Blame the people who wrote those reports. Tortured? I don't know anyone he tortured. The people in Guantanamo Bay don't count, as waterboarding isn't torture. 9/11 did happen on his watch, but you can't blame him exclusively for it. Clinton's policies did as much to allow 9/11 as Bush's policies did. Iraq wouldn't have been on our side anyways. As for North Korea, what about them? No Democrat has been able to stop them either. Hezbollah was able to launch rockets because it was a WAR. People have things called weapons. ''


 * Mr. Bush is not blamed for their accuracy. He believed that Iraq was close to having or already had nuclear weapons. Even if they did, though, as you said "(they don't) have the technology to launch a missile to any place important". If waterboring wasn't torture, what was? Perhaps this?? They wouldn't have been on our side exactly, but who was it who bombed Iran's nuclear reactor that is now up and running? Israel? America maby? No, it was Mr. Hussein. As for your "life isn't fair" argument, the republicans or democrats could have blown them off the face of the earth with out nukes. And why is there a war? I'll answer that in the next section.

''We never created Israel. Israel was created by Great Britain after World War I in the Balfour Declaration. ''


 * Israel was created in 1948 by Great Britain. Jews fleeing Europe after the Holocaust moved to Israel, killing the native Palestinians and forcing them off their land. I am not attacking these Jews nor am I downplaying the Holocaust, just saying two wrongs don't make a right. This action was supported by America and the rest of the western world and likely could not have occurred without our support. Furthermore, since Israel's creation, we have given them over 110 billion in aid. This is money we don't get back, we might as well be burning it. If this is what you though of when you said useless spending, then yes I agree about that. In addition to this support, the Israeli airforce has more American planes then double the number of planes from all other countries in the world including itself combined. Israel is often bullied by Egypt, Iran, and other countries much larger and stronger then it- without American support, do you really think it could survive this? Even when we do not try to help Israel, we are. What did Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu have to say about 9/11? Perhaps some sympathy? Or a pledge to stand by the US's side? No, he said, "We are benefiting from 1 thing, and that is the attack on the twin towers and pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. This is getting off topic, so moving on.

''... you're kidding, right? ''


 * Nope. What agencies do you want to see cut or removed?

''And what trap did Bush lead us into? He was a great president. The economy is something that both parties can handle, but that depends on the specific person. Would I trust someone like Christine O'Donnell with the economy? No. Would I trust someone like Obama with the economy? No. Would I trust someone like McCain with the economy? Yes.''


 * If Mr. Bush was a great president, what were FDR, JFK, Lincoln, Reagan, and Washington? I am not sure I trust Obama with the economy aether, though I don't think its for the same reason you don't. Obama has yet to prove himself a good person, but he is still capable of doing it. McCain may have been better when it came to the economy, though I wouldn't support tax breaks for the wealthy or deregulation. However, when factoring other, non-economy things, Obama is far better.

My hand hurts and my comp is laggy, so I may not respond anymore until tomorrow. Interesting discussion though ;) 23:59, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Re:You touched my page@@@@@
http://runescape.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Liquidhelium/Hitpoints&diff=next&oldid=3200378 -- 23:13, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. whitespace doesn't look professional 2. it's useless -- 23:47, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Charm logs and DBP
Hi. In response to the charm logs, I suppose you're right, I didn't really think that through. However, I still think that the advantages of having more input (especially on some of the charm logs where there is little or no data) outweighs the problems that you mentioned. I think a compromise would be to lower the kills needed to update the charm log to 25, which would be more reasonable and would probably be a large enough sample that people would not be accidentally biased towards higher rates. What do you think? Also, when are we going to get some sort of automatic charm log updater like we have for the exchange prices? We've been waiting on it for months. I wonder if Q could do it.

As for DBP, I'm not a big fan of the "defining..." projects, but I'll write something up on neutrality some time tomorrow.

Also, good luck debating 3AF  23:33, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to 25. I was quite fascinated by 3AF's change in professionalism.  I didn't bother to read it when I wrote you this first message, but I read it now and it's quite interesting.  Anyway, I'd like it if I could stay well away from the duel between you and Degen; the two of you have some things you need to work out, or it will end badly for one or both of you.  When the drama llama rears its head, I run away.   01:35, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you are excused for rambling.  01:35, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Abortion
Glad you like it. 02:12, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

AWB
Perhaps you should try it before having instant hate for it. A little prejudice. 02:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

IP's and blocking
Arrr! this user says he has had an ip block and has other users using the same ip. Would you mind conversing the subject and/or fixing it? 02:46, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Faster then me nevermind  02:47, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Tired of using the Nuke Section
If you don't mind, I'm going to copy that comment to the discussion as I want the exchange to be viewed by everyone. 14:41, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, if we are going to have an exchange that's completely relevant to the deletion discussion, keep it all on that thread. It could have an effect on the discussion. 14:50, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * If it deals with both, I would keep in on the Yew Grove. 14:53, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * They are supposed to be similar, but the differences are quite clear, in my opinion. 00:41, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Using a brighter red colour would take us back to square one (that being that pink is just not a great colour for this kind of thing). There are not enough colours to have a completely unique colour for each group, so if we have to pick one for helpers, it might as well be a variant of the staff colour. I'm not spelling colour like that to upset you, I just forgot you hate that. 00:45, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yellow and gray have intentionally been avoided all these years, as they both can become difficult to read. 00:48, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Before completely removing something I do, consider that I might have a reason behind doing it. There's no problem having a section appear when halting an AWB account, as it makes clear why the user is editing the page at all in and of itself. There's no reason not to do it, and I've already done it, so leave it alone. 00:55, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that it redirected to the other bot's talk was something I was getting to, as I wanted to get the preload thing sorted out without having to open more tabs than I already had open (three). Generally, it's best to stay out of what other people are doing unless it's obvious they are no longer working on it. 01:07, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Thanks
You're welcome! 16:40, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I go on an 8 hour meth binge...
And when I come back, there's a desysopping thread? Madness! Anyways, I wasn't joking when I said those things on chess's talk page, which in case you didn't see, can be found here. I notice that parsons didn't include this post in his "research" which was strange as it was the only relevant post I had made! Anyways after I made that post, lord read it and responded thusly. We later talked about it in-game and one thing led to another. Before we knew it, we were married at the monastery west of Edgeville. 18:30, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I feel like an ass. I just rolled back your userpage on accident   19:39, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I really didn't mean to do that at all. 19:40, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry  19:42, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Gaming the System
On 19 September 2010, you protected your userpage for the following reason: "Changed protection level for "User:Liquidhelium": Excessive vandalism: I thought I was very clear about not editing my userpage, but I guess not." The edit that was made was clearly an accident, and was immediately reverted by the same editor. Your decision to label this "Excessive vandalism" in order to protect your userpage (in violation of a decision prohibiting userpage full-protection) is a violation of RS:GTS. Please do not protect your userpage except if it is actually vandalised excessively. Thank you,
 * Edit - Never mind, I saw your explanation on Cook Me Plox's talk.
 * The fact that you are so cheerfully explaining how it is not GTS shows quite clearly that you know it is. DEU has exceptions for maintenance edits. You are not an exception to the exception. Edits such as those made by qbot can never be considered vandalism by any reasonable user. Any assertions otherwise are willfully fallacious misrepresentations of our policies, and even reality itself, for the purposes of serving your agenda. That is the essence of GTS. Your attitude is especially problematic for edits done by bots or via the AWB. I refuse to allow you to make any editor jump through hoops (that is to say, coding the bot to not edit your page, or manually removing your page from the lists generated) to satisfy your unreasonable expectations for your userpage. However looking at your userpage, I believe that there will be no reason to edit it at any point in the near future, so hopefully, despite our extreme differences in opinion, we will never come into further conflict over this issue. However there is one thing that needs to be done, change File:Cooking.gif to File:Cooking-icon.png or Skill clickpic|Cooking in your upper-right corner. I intend to replace those gifs and delete them when Hedonism Bot is botted and sysopped. Just because I don't think your expectations are unreasonable doesn't mean that I won't make a token effort to meet them. Oh, and I know you're going to want to reply to the arguments that I've made, and you are free to do so (I won't archive them as spam), but you will likely get no response, since I believe our positions are irreconcilable and further arguments are a waste of time. Love, 23:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I win
HA I WON! --Coolnesse 21:29, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Fail game
Undercroft? -- 22:24, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dragon did it... -- 00:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. U BROKE THE HILITES -- 00:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dragon did it again. :O -- 00:06, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

u borked it!
Yes sir it was the underscore you forgot. Wait a few moments and lets see! 00:04, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * what about a shade of red? That's about the only color I can think of that isn't already used and that will show up ok amongst both light and dark backgrounds. 00:09, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * And purple looks a lot like visited links. Anyways we can use a clearly darker or lighter shade of red. Also, orange is already staff! 00:11, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um well if you're going to do that, why not make awb's orange? Changing bots back to orange and giving awb's their purple seems like an unnecessary switch that could confuse some users. 00:14, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I know, I've got a great solution in mind for that, but I need gaz to help code it. Once he shows me how, everything will be perfect :D 00:32, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

EvilBot
I made User:EvilBot at the begining of Forum:Modification of RS:BOTS - Relating to AWB use in case it went in the opposite direction I wanted it to. Can you add it to the hilite please. Thanks. 01:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, the RC is lagging on me... I just saw it after leaving the message >.< 01:04, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It shall remain redundant!!! 01:06, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Notice
D: I thought I could outsmart chu guys by making the page exist D: 01:47, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. 01:51, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I the only person who goes through everyones messages on their talk page ? D: 01:53, September 20, 2010 (UTC)