User talk:Paul Z

Hi  01:18, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody responded in chat
Good work on the quick guide. Also welcome back, I haven't seen you in a while. 02:54, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Forum Replying
Please refrain from making remarks upon any other editors views on your proposed addition to degrading items. It's unhelpful and it's causing friction that should be prevented from continuing. If someone disagrees with you, do not continue the dialogue with insults such as commenting as you did here. It is unproductive, so please discontinue the pushing of something that some may not want or think is a necessity. 19:54, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * The "insult" to which you're referring is actually a remark about how he's being catty in his imitation of how I write my comments. About the rest of what you've said: Oh, so it's OK for others to make remarks about the view I'm putting out there, but the minute I do the same to their views (as part of a healthy discussion), I'm to be silenced? Causing friction is purely subjective when discussing something as objective as the merits (or sometimes the lack thereof) of someone's particular view. I'm not "pushing" anything either. If you'd read the whole discussion, you'd have noticed that most of us came to the consensus that a broadening of the definition of degradation, as well as the expansion of a category, are in order. Regardless, telling me to stop supporting my own idea just because most people who've voiced their opinion on it disagree with it is an appeal to majority; a logical fallacy. 20:42, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * You are confronting people that oppose you as you are doing right above this. You can support your idea as much as you desire, but it comes off as crude. It matters for all sides in the conversation. I have no opinion on the subject at hand, but your handling of it isn't great. If I get in-game messages about what happens in the forums it concerns me. So please, if you have to make a point, do not discount what others have posted.
 * Being so candor does not always help. Also, if you were being 'silenced', it would be in the form of measures that I do not do. 20:53, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * In-game messages about what happens on the forums? Are you kidding me? I'm not "confronting" anyone. I'm objectively replying to things directed at me. Coming off as crude does not warrant a request to kindly stop defending my position. If what others have said constitutes illogical nonsense derived from baseless arguments, then yes, I will discount it. No one seems to be able to objectively evaluate the content of what's being said and instead opts for ad hominems. 21:00, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Democracy on the Wiki
Hi. I was trying not to be confrontational. Yes, I did review your idea. Yes, I did try to consider how useful it would be. If RS had a far wider array of exotic items that degraded, especially in even more exotic ways, then I would have considered supporting for adding it. But most items already say if and how it degrades in the item description. Admittedly, my decision to oppose did straddle the line of being superficial. You are going to learn that there are people who would support and oppose ... well ... anything ... often with minimal reasoning. But as many ideas brought up for discussion aren't viewed by many, and probably fewer voice a direct opinion. --Deltaslug (talk) 20:13, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * Way to be patronizing as hell. As if I'm not aware that others are capable and allowed to post their views. Equally though, that means that I'm allowed to defend my own views and to engage in discussions about the subject to try to reach something that resembles a solution; which happened even before you initially commented. Again, you clearly haven't read any of this, since you still think I'm on about the original idea. 20:42, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Augmentable
Degrade to dust items cannot be augmented, please do not add that category. 01:35, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * You realise I undid my own edits after I realised that of my own accord right? "Please do not" comment on my page when you're slower than I am at correcting my own mistakes, and "please do not" tell me what to do like that.
 * Try to be less rude. Also try to be less wrong. 01:40, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's an ironic remark. Telling me to be less rude then immediately telling me to be less wrong, which in itself is rude. This is brand new content, and I was going off this: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape2/images/0/04/RuneFest_2015_-_Invention_augmentable_items.png/revision/latest?cb=20151003145424 . After I realised that t90 power armour isn't augmentable I undid those edits. Therefore, there was nothing for me to be wrong about. Stop with your pretentious bickering and focus on finding out facts next time. More importantly, wait a modicum of a minute more before barking orders and insults at people before they have a chance to correct their honest mistake.

Items
Please make an effort to use the infobox, instead of adding a bunch of categories. 15:26, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the categories I added are legitimate. Now stop bitching every time I do something you don't like. Cry somewhere else about it.
 * The categories are to be added by the infobox. So fill in the infobox. Stop being an asshole. 15:28, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll stop being an asshole when you stop micromanaging every fucking edit I make.
 * We have pre-established guidelines on how to create and maintain pages. It'd be much more helpful if you followed form instead of pushing against the grain and getting personally insulted when something incorrect has been fixed. 15:31, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * "Pushing against the grain" eh? Is that what you call it when I do something slightly inconvenient for you? You're a piece of work, pretentiously barking orders at me on my damn talk page instead of simply fixing the edits and allowing me to observe.
 * That's exactly what I'm talking about with the getting personally insulted at everything. 15:37, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * You're literally making personal by coming to my talk page to command me to do things a certain way, and condescendingly at that. Just fix the damn edits that irk you, and I can see what the hell I did wrong. Personally attacking me like this does absolutely nothing, yet you're too short-sighted to see that.
 * Or maybe I'm trying to inform you in case you didn't see my edits. Seriously, I'm informing you of a guideline and you're treating it as an insult. Dude, calm down. 15:40, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh trust me asshole, I see your damn edits. You're not merely "informing me of a guideline"; you've repeatedly been condescending and micromanaging when it comes to telling me how to edit.

Can you stop being to confrontational, please? 15:41, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would like it if he would stop confronting me on my talk page as well.
 * The one constant in your previous interactions, resulting in talk page messages asking you to cool it/stop/etc (e.g. most of your archive and the above discussions), is you. 15:51, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Gee, you think? It's sort of necessary that I be involved in order to be contacted. I'd be rather concerned if I was getting messaged about someone else's activities.

Paul, calm down. Nobody likes being told something they've done is wrong, but that's life. Mol is quite a confrontational person and can come across as condescending sometimes, but if you react with more aggressive behaviour and start becoming agitated by it, then you'll just generate more problems. Personally, unlike Gaz above, I don't really care about your previous behaviour currently or how you've responded to criticism in the past, but you need to understand that "fighting fire with fire" is not how to have a discussion. If you think something Mol or anyone is doing or saying is violating RS:UTP, then let an admin know, whether that's through chat or their talk page. Mol has been blocked and warned various times in the past for violating this policy, as have you, and you both have one common issue - you can both be confrontational and argumentative. If he's violating it, he'll be blocked again, simple. If he's not, don't respond with something worse that can see you violating this policy or getting blocked yourself. Personally, Mol has criticised me a ton, and sometimes it is harsh, but like I said at the start - it is part of life. You're doing a good job in editing, even if some of your edits may have slight problems, but listen to the criticism and accept it. Your talk page is here for people to praise you or critique you. Expect it. Whatever you do, wherever you do it, you'll receive criticism. Editing content here is like putting your work on display - it will be ripped to shreds if it isn't good enough. Cool down and don't respond to it further.
 * And who in the hell are you? I never said I don't like being told that what I did was wrong, it's the way he's saying it, and the fact he's doing it almost immediately after the fact, on top of the fact that he corrected the mistake. The latter entirely sufficient to make the point. I see the corrected edit, and I learn from that. Having some asshole come to my talk page to further harass me about it does nothing but add insult to injury. So save the condescending undertone for someone else. Don't you dare even begin to compare the both of us. We have absolutely nothing in common. This is my talk page, so I'm fully entitled to respond to everything people post on it. I will not sit here and take his (or anyone else's for that matter) abuse silently. This tactless moron needs to learn how to interact with others.

Paul, there's a distinction between personal attacks and criticism or discussion...not everyone who leaves you a note here is out to get you, but you seem to be predisposed to think they are.

In this case, it's reasonable to leave a message for someone after a revert like that. While it might be a bit agitating to have something like that fixed by someone else before you (possibly) try to fix it yourself...from the perspective of a recent changes patroller, it's not really feasible in general to wait around for that possibility. I know you and Mol have some history and his message was a little bit condescending (and I'm not going to speculate as to his reasons for continuing this). Still, launching a holy war whenever he (or anyone else) corrects your edits isn't going to improve anything for anyone. I don't like having to deal with this shit, neither does Gaz. We're all trying to make the best resource we can, and this personal conflict bullshit (just in general) serves no useful purpose and distracts from our mission. Let's move on and realize everyone could have handled this a bit better. 16:40, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Guilt (Nomad's Elegy)
I fought it, I even have evidence. The fight with Guilt is at 39:24. 19:11, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. For some reason, I never fought Guilt. I only dealt with Shame. Oh well.

Test
Test. 18:01, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

Quest point cape
I reverted your change on quest point cape because you basically changed it back to a version from six months ago. Why? 20:44, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, all evidence I can find points to the Mining requirement not being boostable. 21:07, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I was looking at an old version of the page and it must've edited from that version, simple mistake. About the Mining requirement, how do you explain this though? http://i.imgur.com/bX30i3y.png

I took that screenshot on September 14th, 2011. Unless it's a weird glitch, that guy seems to have been able to do the quest without the required Mining level. 21:23, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

According to http://forum.tip.it/topic/302707-can-i-boost-any-stats-for-rotm/ there may have been a glitch that made it boostable on release, but that was unintentional and hasn't been that way for about five years. 21:24, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, duly noted. 21:34, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

Nomad's Elegy/Quick guide
Please take your discussion to a talk page - either the article talk page or one of your user talk pages. I'd expected you to know better than to edit war since you've been here for a while, but apparently you're unaware of RS:3RR. This is your first (and last) warning: the next person to undo will get a short block. Please leave the page as it is until your wording dispute is resolved. -- 07:03, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't break 3RR because the reverts were not made within the same 24 hours. As for the wording dispute, he's literally making utter shit edits and ruining the pre-existing quality content of the page. I don't really think there will be a point at which it can be stated that the dispute has been resolved. 23:36, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also read RS:GTS. -- 00:35, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * "Don't interpret policies and editors word-for-word."? Am I meant to take that at face value or is there some common sense interpretation I'm missing? Also, I've posted to his talk page. Do I now have to wait for his drivel of a response before I can fix Nomad's Elegy/Quick guide? 00:40, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? The first example listed on the page is exactly what you're trying to do right now. -- 02:36, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, do I have to wait for this guy to reply to my post on his talk page to be able to fix the mess he's created of Nomad's Elegy/Quick guide? 04:15, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wait for a response, please. There are so many other things that need fixing in the meantime. This is just one page, and it's relatively readable either way. -- 05:44, February 28, 2016 (UTC)

User treatment policy reminder
Hey, could you please remember the user treatment policy when leaving messages on other users' pages? Some of your recent interactions with others have been inappropriately rude and abrasive. 21:47, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * You're clearly referring to my interactions with one vandalising individual in particular (Wobbiso), so there's no need to blurt out general, vague statements. First, he calls me arrogant. Next, he calls me young and extremely narrow-minded, then proceeds to break RS:DDD by removing that remark. After I rationally reply to him and objectively evaluate his actions and lack of ability (among other things), I'm the one who gets slapped across the face with a RS:UTP reminder. Sure. Logic. 22:35, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * Read point 2 of the DDD exceptions. As fer ye, the reason fer this warning is this:


 * Telling somebody that they're inept and shouldnae bother editing is unacceptable. Please stop with the demeaning comments towards Wobbiso.  The actions of others disnae clear ye of any wrongdoing or permit ye to make those sorts of comments  22:45, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you could rewrite that in proper English, especially considering this my talk page. 01:05, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay then. As a wiki, we're meant to nurture and encourage our editors to succeed.  Your comments towards others have been highly aggressive and insulting, and could very well have cost the wiki a potentially good editor, ergo not nurturing and encouraging.  If you didn't find it acceptable to be called "narrow-minded" and "arrogant", why should others find it acceptable to be called "uneducated" and a vandal?  Please reread RS:UTP and RS:AGF  08:52, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
 * I never actually insulted him as a person with those terms. I criticised his actions and words. 19:12, March 6, 2016 (UTC)

pets
I guess you just left chat as I joined, but I can take pics of the pets. Rejoin S:C and hit me up 15:29, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

2006 Easter event
Don't forget to clear these -- 18:25, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

Barrows
Please stop changing those articles to the names of the set effect. Those articles describe the equipment as a whole, whereas "Brother's " is only one aspect of it. 19:16, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of those names, but, again, they are only the name of the set bonus. This much is fairly obvious when you actually consider that fact that many items belong to multiple sets. Otherwise we'd, by your logic, have to place both the normal and golden sets together. It would also follow that several of your examples would require page moves. But everyone can agree that "Constructor" or "Teralith" are bad article names compared to Constructor's outfit and Teralith equipment. Blindly following a mislabeled name that's only used in 1 location only makes finding the relevant articles harder. Haphazardly deciding the set bonus name in tooltips as the standard is especially problematic, as they're not the only place you can choose to take a name from:


 * http://i.imgur.com/xqKa5cV.png
 * http://i.imgur.com/nR4Ov4W.png
 * So no, those article names aren't the least bit correct. And the unimaginative names used for other set bonuses doesn't really prove anything. 20:25, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * That sort of inconsistent behaviour in naming is nothing more than confusing to readers. And the "Item set" label is a misnomer, because, as I said above, items can belong to multiple sets, and sets can contain items outside of the set. The Varrock platebody behaves as the golden mining top, and thus it contributes to the "Golden mining" set, but it should not be considered part of it. Furthermore, if you're going to insult people by saying they're not in their right mind, consider that calling a set of equipment a "Taint" makes no sense. Perhaps you should take your own advice and use redirects to point set bonus names to the correctly named articles. 23:41, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Jlun said to move it without understanding the full situation, and others disagreed with your move.

[2016-06-09 19:34:13]  Item Set refers to the set effect that the full armour gives. It is not what the full set is actually called. [2016-06-09 19:36:47]  It's just easier to have it as "Barrows brother's name" equipment, infact thats how it's been for years here, why change it [2016-06-09 19:38:42]  It's not technically incorrect, when people are searching for the set they're obviously going to search for Dharok the Wretched's equipment, not the less common item set name that only became a recent addition to the game. [2016-06-09 20:00:23]  In the case of the Barrows items specifically, "Dharok's Might" is definitely the name of the set effect, not the set [2016-06-09 20:05:19]  Because the others don't actually have named set effects like Barrows does [2016-06-09 20:05:34]  And IIRC the barrows set effect tooltip predates the others
 * It was not extensively discussed. And you had even more valid points coming from Ben as to why you should not have moved the pages. 03:36, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * You're just blatantly ignoring the reasons given. And if all you can do now is insult religion as a whole, then it's pretty clear you're not going to continue this argument rationally. 04:19, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * This is directly from the cache:
 * https://i.imgur.com/5su4cNU.png
 * Literally, in the game code, this is noted as the name of the set bonus, not the item set. 04:29, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

Signatures
Please don't insult me for bringing your signature in line with policy. 13:09, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't "bring it in line with policy" (which isn't even your place to do), you vandalised it by completely removing a section of it. You fully deserve to be blasted for that. 16:31, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for breaching RS:UTP, specifically here. This is completely unacceptable behaviour, regardless who is right or wrong in your argument between Mol. 13:19, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * And how long will the block last this time. Terrible enforcement of arbitrary and silly rules. Learn to moderate and inform properly. 16:35, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * And now I can't even edit my own goddamn signature. Absolutely terrible system you have in place. I demand that I be allowed to edit Template:Signatures/Paul Z to fix Mol's vandalism. 16:42, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Log?page=User%3APaul_Z&type=block And enforcing the rules on conduct towards other users is not "terrible enforcement of arbitrary and silly rules". Swearing at others, insulting and feuding with them is not acceptable conduct on the wiki.  I believe you've actually been treated rather leniently up until now.  As for the "vandalism", your signature was violating the rules and so was reverted back to a state where it did not violate the rules  16:47, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still in an unacceptable condition to me, something which is inherent in creating one's own signature. I said the fact it hadn't been stated how long the block will last was wrong. Oh, I'm so grateful that I've been treated leniently to this point, Mr. "Bad cop". I should still have the fundamental right to edit my own signature, just like I'm able to edit my own talk page. Like I said before, this is a horrible and primitive blocking system (and in general, user interface/personalisation options). Kudos for remembering this time to not write like I'm sure you speak though. Mol's vandalism of my signature under the guise of "reverting it in line with the rules" is what's really unacceptable. RS:UTP is actually just a manifestation of special snowflakes who rose to power on here and wanted to create a "safe space". Real life doesn't have filters and discourse should not be prohibited no matter what gets said. Like I've said, arbitrary and silly rules on here. 17:04, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * You're confusing rights with privileges. Also, I am pretty sure if you joined any group and went around telling the other members of that group to "fuck off" in an aggressive manner, then they would have every right to remove you from said group.  Feel free to read RS:SIG.  Ensuring people abide by the rules is not vandalism, nor do you have the right to edit your talk page and signature.  It is a privilege that in this case Haidro had every right to remove.  If you wish to challenge this block, go ahead, but insulting the admins and blaming everybody but yourself is not the way to go about it  17:13, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * So he has the right to take away privileges? False. He has privileges himself. It's not ensuring I abide by the rules, it's vandalising something into a dilapidated state. Actually no, most groups don't have fascist rules that force people to interact with each other in muted tones, therefore I would be fine if I acted this way in most other groups. Once again, silly and arbitrary special snowflake rules. Yeah, I do challenge this block, in the name of freedom of expression. Refrain from inserting snide remarks pertaining to your opinion on the matter; you're just as much a part of the problem as Mol and Haidro are. I have done nothing wrong, therefore there is no reason to blame myself for anything. It's completely ridiculous how much of a hive mentality is prevalent here. You're a terrible admin by the way. :) 17:25, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well then 17:28, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I've come here to give you a heads up of how our block policy works. Users don't actually have the right to use their talk page while they are blocked - this ability remains so that blocked editors can appeal their block if they feel that they have been blocked unfairly. Ciphrius already added the block appeal notice to your talk page in his previous edit: I am now giving you a chance to add any other reasons that you think that your block should be removed before I consider whether the block should be changed/removed or not. Please take this opportunity seriously, as if your appeal is denied then you will not be permitted to make any further appeals and your ability to edit your talk page will be removed if you continue to edit it. If you continue to use your talk page for purposes other than formally appealing your block then this will also result in your ability to edit your talk page being removed. Once again this is all within our block policy which you can read here. 18:08, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * If I "don't have the right" to use my talk page, why the hell isn't there a proper system in place wherein I only have the option to appeal my ban? I do feel I've been unfairly blocked, and the reasons for this have been detailed in my above posts. The rest of that post of yours is fear-mongering drivel. I do find it funny though how you're the only admin to mention that I don't have the right to use my talk page. Just further proves how bad of an admin Ciphrius is, by not only neglecting to inform me of this, but also actively engaging me in further discussion. 18:47, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * I am denying your appeal request. What I see as your reasons for appeal are:


 * “I have done nothing wrong, therefore there is no reason to blame myself for anything.”
 * “Mol's vandalism of my signature under the guise of "reverting it in line with the rules" is what's really unacceptable”
 * “RS:UTP is actually just a manifestation of special snowflakes who rose to power on here and wanted to create a "safe space". Real life doesn't have filters and discourse should not be prohibited no matter what gets said. Like I've said, arbitrary and silly rules on here”
 * “I demand that I be allowed to edit Template:Signatures/Paul Z to fix Mol’s vandalism”
 * “I should still have the fundamental right to edit my own signature”


 * While I understand that you and Mol do not get along, he has not broken any policy by editing your signature. Perhaps he could have handled this differently, however it is acceptable for editors to edit another user’s signature to make it comply with our rules about signatures. You may feel unhappy about his edits to it, but they are not vandalism. On the other hand your response to him doing this broke RS:UTP, which is not tolerable in any circumstance. Disagreeing with the policy does not mean you can ignore it - and you have been warned about breaking UTP numerous times now so I assume you already know this. As I mentioned you are not entitled to edit anything other than your talk page while you are blocked, but you will be able to edit your signature after your block expires. I will also be removing your ability to edit your own talk page for the rest of your block. Please take time to re-read RS:UTP, as any future breaches of the policy will result in you being blocked for longer periods of time, up to an indefinite block. 19:37, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

RE
AGF has 0 application here. Your edits were absolutely useless. There is absolutely nothing helpful about what you decided to do. Literally all you had to do was add a single sentence and maybe an infobox. But you failed to do that. And you're still going to end up putting this on your list of "Pages I've created", even though your creation was of 0 value. 03:53, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't know anything, don't make a page. It's that simple. Intentionally being disruptive to bring attention to an issue is not helpful. 04:01, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't helping at all. We know item names, they're not hard to get and they come from the cache. But not only were you creating completely useless pages, you were creating completely useless pages even though you could have used both the in game Treasure Hunter description and the news post to create an article that gave some meaningful information. You put absolutely 0 effort into actually helping build the foundation of a good article, and that kind of editing is despicable and lazy. 04:15, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to make articles, please be useful. The wiki is about providing information. If you're not providing information, you're being useless. 04:29, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm done with you, because you're bent on being "minimalistic" instead of helpful. 04:35, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

this
It looks like you didn't actually make some of these pages. 04:38, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually did, and I saw that you did pulled that asinine trick before I updated my list. Doesn't really matter though, because I know I created them. You must be 5 years old for feeling the need to point that out. 04:43, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean you didn't really create anything. 04:44, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I did, I created the articles with the yet-to-be-created Armour of Seasons template. You simply overwrote the articles afterwards because you're unable to control your emotions. Either way, they're staying on my personal index, because it's there for me, not for you to attempt to dictate. 04:47, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I simply created the articles. It says so right in the history?
 * And if I can't control my emotions, why didn't I come here insulting you and every admin for no reason? 04:49, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is entirely fallacious, because even though the evidence has been erased, you and I both know I was the one who originally created those articles. The coding history not publicly available would reveal that I'm correct and you're incorrect.
 * This is not the place to lament and vent. Your rebuttal is utterly incoherent. You irrefutably failed to control your emotions, as evidenced by your calling my actions "retarded" and "lazy" among a plethora of pejorative descriptors.
 * So much for being "done" with me eh? 04:59, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Where did you buy your thesaurus? 05:00, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Your reply is both completely unproductive and simply ignorant. I wonder when you'll decide to stick to that whole being "done" with me thing you said almost half an hour ago. 05:03, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm being done with you right now. 05:04, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * (Third time's a charm) Cool story bro. 05:06, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Ya just stick a fork in me. Cause I'm done. 05:07, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool story bro. I guess the third time's a charm was actually for the amount of times you said you'd be done before you actually meant it. In before another reply. 05:10, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * If there were a contest for being done, I'd be winning. That's just how done I am. 05:12, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually a really unproductive and off-topic thing to say. I fail to see why you felt the need to spam my talk page and harass me with that quip. Please cease and desist this meaningless exchange effective immediately, though I'm sure this is all one big game to you at this point (which is a classic defense mechanism after being caught out in the wrong like you were). Oh well. 05:16, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I post you to /r/iamverysmart? 05:17, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you may not. 05:18, June 23, 2016 (UTC)