User talk:Christopher-gpuser

About the edit war
I guess this is my apology for the edit war fiasco. Once the page is unlocked, I'll work to make it more balanced and not just catered to my point of view. Maybe this template can work: Undisputed facts in the main article, with two theory sections explaining each point of view. That's what eventually happened with the Imprisoning War page when a similar scenario happened. So sorry for screwing everything up and being so hard-headed.Ganondorfdude11 06:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is fine man, I accept the apology and also apologize for any confusion or mistrust that has been caused. I agree with your idea to the detail, and that was what I was trying to suggest last night. I am very glad you have come back to the table and am very glad we have reached agreement. Perhaps we can work together on it to make it to what you described. I'd be very happy to help if I can. As far as citing sources, I am unsure about the coding required for it, since I was never very good with programming. Perhaps you can help me there. And I in turn can help you as well to craft the sections and bring the article up to speed as you said. For the record, I also agree this encyclopedia is far more credible than the other one, but in a respectful way. I can see that they may have different standards than we do, but they too love the series just as much as we do. I may not agree with all that they do, as I do believe we have a good policy and a good operation here, but as I said, I just live and let live. But I do agree with you that we have a more credible operation here and that we have good policies and a wonderful alliance with other sites, something that can't be said for the other wiki it seems. Link87 16:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stick to this. :/ You're declaring an edit war with me, and not even bothering to check out the discussion page or even bothering to read what I revised. It looks like you're auto-undoing everything I do with no reason to cater to your views. Death Sword 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, an admin undid what you did before too, b/c there is nothing wrong with someone else's theory points being shown if they sound plausible and have something to back them up. We don't cater solely to you either, please understand this. Mandi even undid what you did with it before too, so please refrain from starting an edit war over it. Link87 19:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just disproved it, by the way. So now it's just a faulty comparison. I hope we can both be good sports about this. I didn't mean to be rude or anything, but not being listened to for like a week's worth of conversation does that to a person.

Since this is all over, we can be friends, right? Death Sword 06:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Death Sword, you have neither proven nor disproven anything, it's a theory based on the similarity of the blades, nothing more. There is no real way to say one way or the other if they are the same kind of blade or not, merely that they are of similar design. So we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not the theory is proven or disproven by a mere picture.


 * That said, of course we can be friends. I never considered you an enemy, lol. We're both passionate fanatics of the series, that makes us friends, not enemies. Link87 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said from the beginning, it was never a theory. It was faulty evidence for a theory. I debunked the evidence. You said the blades were the exact same. I said they were not. I proved my hypothesis. This particular bit of evidence is disproven, not the theory it belonged to. Also, I meant to ask you, did you seriously think we were talking about the sword at first? Because I wasn't. Death Sword 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said they were the exact same, I said they were similar to the point of looking almost the same. And yes, it was part of a theory all along, which is why I said I don't understand your persistence over something that has no relevance here. The blades are of similar design, but one is old and cracked and who knows what else. And yes, I thought we were talking about the blades all along. But honestly, nothing is "debunked" here b/c it's all part of a theory, and nothing more. They are similar in design, that is the whole point of that part of the theory. But as I said before, there's been enough arguing and debate about this when it's nothing. I have nothing further to add to this discussion. Link87 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, man. :/ You're not giving my persistence enough credit. It's one thing to debunk evidence, (Because the article said they were identical) but it's another to prove to someone that they said something.

"But that aside, I see no real differences in the blades of the two swords, b/c they really do look identical down to their markings."

You said that during the argument. I retain this stuff, mang. You don't even know. Death Sword 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a point to furthering a discussion Chris doesn't want to have. I'm going to think of it as borderline harassment. I'll look at the state of the article as it is now and make changes as I see fit. Should you want to add/remove anything tell me or another admin here. 04:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Axiomist, I am indeed tiring of this pointless discussion. Nothing has been proven or disproven, and the blades remain of similar design and style nonetheless. I am done with this discussion and I have nothing further to add to it, it has resulted in nothing but pointless argument and proof/disproof of nothing really. Any further comments on this topic can and should be considered harassment, which can be reported. Link87 13:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. I'm just discussing the stuff after. It's like those dudes who box each other, and even though they hit each other in the face so many times, they laugh it off later. "Remember that punch? You totally messed me up, man." Stuff like that. I won't discuss further (No offense, but it kinda' feels like brick-wall conversation) but I'm just throwing it out there. I mean no harm. Death Sword 23:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Realm pictures
Hey! So I've been doing some searching for Sacred Realm pictures we could add to the article, and here are some I've found: Anyway, that's all I have for now, but I'll make sure to keep looking. Dany36 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This post has some good ones.
 * From the Lanayru story in Twilight Princess.
 * Same with this one.
 * And this one. I'm not too convinced about the last three, since I know there are better images where Lanayru's story shows more of the Sacred Realm...I just gotta find them.
 * Maybe this image could be of some use. Possibly add it to the section talking about the spoiling of the Sacred Realm?


 * Hey Dany! Thanks a bunch, I will take a peek and try to procure some images from these sources for the article. I have also added some new sections to the article concerning the Temple of Light as well as the Dark World as well. Take a peek at those if you get a chance and let me know if you think any changes would be good for them. Meanwhile, I will try to deal with the pictures now that I have some sources to work with. Thanks so much! Link87 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page management
Hi there. I noticed you just removed a lot of stuff from your talk page, which is fine and often necessary. However, it's generally considered better practice to archive old discussions rather than deleting them; that way, your talk page stays clean and tidy, but you don't end up deleting comments written by other users. There's a template for the task here, just let me know if you have any problems using it :) 18:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, well thank you for the link Adam. I will definitely do that in future, and for the reasons you stated, which when thinking about it is logical and worthwhile. And thanks for giving me some directions, I'm terrible with coding or webpage work (or at least so far anyway, hoping to improve in time). I can do text and writing just fine, but I wish I was half as talented at computer programming or webpage work. Anyway, yes thank you for mentioning that, and I will definitely adhere to that henceforth.


 * On a side note, when you get a chance, check the Sacred Realm page and let me and Dany know what you think of it now. It should be nearing completion, as I helped take care of most of the text and Dany has helped me seek out pictures and has done all the citing of sources all by herself, which I am proud of her for. ;) Link87 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I went ahead and archived the deleted content for you, hope you don't mind. I'll definitely have a look through the article when I get a chance, just have to psych myself up first though since it's now a pretty hefty read... 18:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the compliments, but I'm actually a girl, haha. XD I guess my username gives the wrong impression at first, huh... Dany36 19:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind at all, in fact I thank you for it. That way we have records of these things, which is always the best policy when thinking about it. And thank you for taking the time to read through the article, as I know it may be a bit tedious to read in its entirety, but hopefully it will be interesting enough to hold interest now! ;) Link87 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh God Dany, I'm so sorry, really, lol. Well now I know at least, but I do apologize for the mix-up. I just thought from your username that perhaps you were a guy. But I meant every word I said too btw. ;) Link87 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, no problem at all! It's not the first time it happens, so it's not your fault at all. XD Dany36 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well thank you, and I am very glad to work alongside such an insightful woman. :) Link87 00:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Flood pictures
Hey, Link87! I was thinking that maybe you could put some of the pictures that are shown in the The Wind Waker introduction in the Great Flood article. You don't have to use all of them, but putting them in their respective section would make the article even neater. Here are some of the pictures:

TWW introduction pics

Let me know if they're of any help. I'll continue adding the references to the Great Flood page meanwhile. :D Dany36 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The source you gave me was a great help Dany, and the pictures are now complete for the Great Flood article. Take a peek at it when you get a chance and let me know what you think. Link87 13:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! I just checked out the article, and you once again did a great job with the placement of the pictures. I'm glad the link I gave you was of help, and we now have yet another page to be proud of... Keep up the fantastic writing skills! Hopefully we'll see this as a Featured Article in the near future. :) Dany36 21:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well thank you very much Dany, I really appreciate it. And thank you very much for the outstanding work on the references. I will be continuing work on Labrynna too, and when I'm done with it, I will contact you about the references. It's a great team effort, and I'm glad I can be a part of making the wiki more appealing. ;) Link87 23:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! It's always a pleasure to work alongside others to make the Zelda Wiki even better. ;) I was actually gonna start with the references for the Labrynna article yesterday, but I kind of got distracted...whoops. :P But you can bet that I'll add as many sources for it as I can, though I'm not sure if I will be able to put up as many since I've only beaten OoA once, so my memory of exact quotes isn't as impressive as OoT, TP, TWW, ALttP, etc. I'll try my best! Dany36 01:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds great! Well if you need help with quotes, let me know. I have beaten OoA several times as well as OoS. I really do appreciate the help with the references too Dany, especially with such an expansive article as one of the country articles. Link87 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Light Temple Location/Temple of Power
Ouch, fabrication is such a strong word. I'd love to make a brilliant stand and be all like, "HAH, you were so wrong, the Light Temple is beneath the Temple of Time," but unfortunately you've trumped me in that I don't have a quote directly with me that can prove it. I won't be able to get my hands on the game any time soon (I'm on vacation), but it sounds like you can. I'm pretty sure Rauru mentions the temple's location when he makes that long speech to Link after he first pulls the Master Sword. The location isn't a theory in any case; if Rauru doesn't say it, than my stating of it being underground was a misfire, because I honestly and truly believe that it is completely canon. As for the "Temple of Power," it is mentioned only once (which is probably why you can't remember it), by Shiek in her first talk with Link directly after Rauru's. She's telling Link about how Ganondorf has taken over the five "temples of power" or something like that. Mind you, the words weren't capitalized, but they are the only collective in-game name given to the temples. I hope you don't go an dismantle all my other references to the "Temples of Power" before looking it up; I'd do it myself (it is my memory we're dealing with, after all), but I won't be able to for about two months. All the same though, please don't go calling it a theory; I do have some pride, after all, and it's all a matter of canon vs. incorrect fact, not a theory. But I'll give you credit, I didn't remember those lights; but then again, I don't really believe they are to be compared anyway, considering how nobody complains about the Lost Woods and Lake Hylia being in vastly different locations each game... Two points for the "private chambers," though, I love that description.--Dreyfus 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion would be more relevant at Talk:Temple of Light, but anyway... Just to clarify with information from the OoT text dumps, there is no mention of "temple(s) of power" whatsoever, and the quote from Rauru is as follows:
 * "I am Rauru, one of the ancient Sages... Ages ago, we ancient Sages built the Temple of Time to protect the entrance to the Sacred Realm... This is the Chamber of Sages, inside the Temple of Light... The Temple of Light, situated in the very center of the Sacred Realm, is the last stronghold against Ganondorf's evil forces."

- Rauru in Ocarina of Time


 * 12:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say it like it is and just like Adam said: there is no mention of these statements or titles anywhere and no evidence to support them, and they have no place in the mainstream part of an article without that evidence. They can be placed in theory sections, but only if there is credible evidence to back them up. And in this case I'm sorry to say there is no evidence at all, as Adam pointed out. I apologize if the wording seems strong as I respect you as a fellow Zelda fan and colleague, but I have played Ocarina of Time way more times than I could count, and I never once heard any of these things you're saying. I even remember much of the game verbatim, that's how many times I've played it. Sheik never calls them "Temples of Power," he calls them "the five temples...one in a deep forest...one on a high mountain...one under a vast lake...one inside the house of the dead...one inside a goddess of the sand". Rauru never once states that the Temple of Light is beneath the Temple of Time, he makes it clear that it resides in the Sacred Realm. Link87 12:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough for me. Though it really makes me wonder where I got that then...--Dreyfus 12:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's all good Dreyfus, we all can make mistakes with text from the games or the like so it's not like it hasn't happened before. But one thing we do go by here, as Dany36 has been wonderful about in working with me to make sure of, is that as much of the information as possible in the articles have references and evidence to back up all our statements so we have the highest credibility as a source of Zelda information. Perhaps you may have read something from one of the Japanese versions of the manuals, which are known to differ from the American ones, which seem to be the more widely-accepted versions. Sometimes you'll run into different titles in the Japanese versions of the games, so I'm guessing perhaps that you may have gotten some of these ideas from there. But never once have I heard of any of this, and that's just being honest. Link87 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Skype
Do you happen to have Skype? We have a Zelda Wiki chat formed on Skype and we were wondering if you would like to join? 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Skype is mainly text chat, too. A lot of people tend to think otherwise.


 * It'd be a great honor for me Mandi, I would be delighted. I can download it and set it up. How do I coordinate it to chat with all of you on it once I have it downloaded?? I got it downloaded now, but I need to know the name of the group so I can add it. I searched for Zelda Wiki, but couldn't find the group. Is there another name that is used for it?? Link87 04:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The best way is to add an individual person. You can add me, my Skype name is Mandi151993. I'll add you to the chat. 04:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sign in, let's discuss the GoT page so we don't step on each other toes. 03:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood and done. Look forward to chatting with you again on Skype soon! You're a really cool guy with a lot of talent!! ;) Link87 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mutual ;) I keep skype open while working on the site. It's easier to talk there than on talk pages. :p 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyrule Page
A group of us Admins and Bureaucrats decided that the Hyrule page was extremely oversized, and I'm disappointed that rather than cut down on what you added back, you added back everything and made it even more large. As an Administrator of this Wiki, it is not only my right, but my duty to ensure the quality of every page, and if you can't make a page better while editing it, don't bother editing it at all. Every edit should work towards improving it, not "oh it's getting worse but it'll get super awesome eventually" type stuff. The only reason I don't obliterate the page again is because it'd start an edit war, thus requiring us to Protect the page, and then it would never be improved.

Next time, make your stuff in a word document and get it ready to go. The size of that page is ridiculous, and if it's not acceptable in a few days, expect the same sort of wiping of massive amounts of content to occur. I don't know if I'm doing the right thing by letting it slide, but I'll let you get it "fixed" before I take any further action. Good luck. --Xizor 10:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you're goofy if you think this can all be done in just a short amount of time. This is a long process that has to be done carefully to meet standards, and you cannot rush us in this effort, it's a lot of work for just a couple of people to do. Do you even have any idea what article we're talking about??? It's HYRULE! The place where over 80% of the series takes place, of course it's going to be long, and if you think for one second it's going to be short you're kidding yourself. Zeldapedia's got a long one themselves, but by nature it's going to be one of the longest articles on the wiki, I would hope someone in your position would have realized that long ago. We will be working to make things detailed and yet concise, but you've got to be reasonable here, and everything you just said is not even close to that.


 * Second, I'm even more amazed at the lack of thought in your first statements: how can we cut down anything when you take it upon yourself to just wipe it?? That's an oxymoron and makes no sense whatsoever, so I'd be more careful about what you say if I were you.


 * Third, we're doing a heck of a much better job here than you or anyone else that's been complaining about has, you haven't done anything period. And if you don't like the way we're doing it, then as I told the other complainers, do it yourself. If you're not doing anything to help in the construction however, I must contest your "right" to criticize anything about what we do in the development of the article. We'd greatly welcome your assistance in actually building the article, not tearing it down though.


 * Actually Xizor, it's you admins and bureaucrats that should step aside and let us that are actually doing work do just that, work. You've been happy up to this point to just kick back and not do a thing with this article at all for over a year, and you say to fix it up "as we see fit", yet you criticize and are picky about what you want. And let me tell you, what you want and what some of the other admins want are two different things. I've been getting requests that they actually be more detailed. I understand what you're saying, and it's an excellent idea to focus solely on how the plots of the games affect Hyrule itself, but for God's sake don't get in our way until we're done and we can all discuss what we want to edit out together. You act as if you've actually been doing something to help with it when you haven't, just like some of the others I'm sure you're talking about, they're the same open-mouth-insert-footers that tried to criticize me but backed off when I told them that if they didn't like it to do it themselves. I don't see any of you doing anything to help those of us that are actually working on it but complain and get in the way, so if that's all you're going to do rather than actually help us with it, then get out of our way and let us do our job. You've let this article sit for over a year, and you're just now showing interest in it when someone is actually doing something with it. It will be quality, so I will thank you not to criticize its quality before it's complete. And just because you're an admin doesn't give you the right to abuse those powers either, nor does it to the others that have been all-talk-no-do. I respect all of you and have nothing against any of you, but for you to criticize us for actually working on this when it's been sitting for over a year with no work on you guys' part smacks of hypocrisy. Link87 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in like this, but I'd like to remind everyone on how the Sacred Realm page looked when it had been sitting there for over a year (the Great Flood is also a good example of this). Yes, at first we did have some problems with Chris because the ALttP section was mainly a summary, but we talked about it in a civilized way, and look where that page is now: a page that is worthy of being a Featured Article. It didn't get that way by threatening the ONLY writer that bothered to take up the task of rewriting the page, because that doesn't help anything or anyone. So I say we all relax, let Ganondorfdude and Chris do their own thing, and if once they're finished people think that there are still issues with the article, then we can talk about it before any hasty and big decisions are made. Also, Hyrule is a place that has been in almost every Zelda game, so we can't expect this page to be minimal. I'd say that, once each Appearances section has been developed, it should even be larger than the Sacred Realm and Triforce page. That's just how it is because, let's face it: we could write a book about Hyrule, so let's not focus too much on the length of the article, but instead of the quality. Yes, it will be long, but I can pretty much assure everyone that everything in that article will have something to do with Hyrule, much like everything on the Sacred Realm page deals with...well, the Sacred Realm. So let's all relax before we start more silly arguments on a project that's going to take a while before it's finally done.


 * Also, sort of off-topic, but Chris, I can assure you that today I'll get the references done for Earth Temple (things are looking a bit more relaxed now, haha), and as always, you can count on my help with the sources once the Hyrule article is all done and finished. Dany36 15:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Dany for your understanding and your patience, it is appreciated. We will be continuing work with the article and we will do our best to be detailed but to the point where we can. And I am very grateful that you understand and grasp the scope of just what we're dealing with here, that it is Hyrule for goodness sake and that it will by nature be one of the longest articles perhaps on the entire wiki. It will take time, work and patience, and yes we will need your help with references when we are done. I'll keep you posted as the project develops, and any constructive input is welcome, as is any help at all in the development process.


 * And that's great to hear about the Earth Temple article Dany, it will finally have the finishing touch when you work your magic with the references. ;) And thanks once again as always, you're always wonderful to work with. Link87 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the locations and landmarks section of the Hyrule article just seems to be a wall of text. We do not need a large amount of plot summary to describe each and every landmark in Hyrule, and it eventually becomes redundant. Use things like tags to make the pictures line up instead of just trying to pad out the length of the paragraph to make it fit the picture. The article is already so long we've had to split it into subpages. Ganondorfdude11 21:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Ganondorfdude, none of what I wrote in my estimation is "redundant", but merely enough detail to space the pictures correctly. And the way you're doing these looks out of place with the rest of the article. We didn't do the others that way, and you're not adding nearly enough detail to some of these sections. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree there. But as the bulk of the writing has been coming from me, I think I ought to have a say-so in what's kept and what's removed as well, not just you. I agree that the article is getting long, but I'm afraid that we all knew that from the beginning, given the topic being discussed. And by nature, an article of this magnitude is going to be long, there's no real way around that. We can work to trim down what we can, I agree with those efforts, but at the same time we have to keep some consistency with how we've put the entire section together. I have tried to keep the appearances of the different locales down to one sentence per appearance, but as seen in Hyrule Castle, even that is long due to the number of appearances it has made. So bottom line: please consult me if you have reservations about what I've written and we can work together to discuss what needs to remain and what can be cut. I am doing the best I can to write the subsections as concisely as possible, but we cannot just make one or two sentences per locale, there's no meat to the bones then. If we're going to use breaks, we should have done that to start with, but seeing as we've come all this way into it without them, it seems out of place to start now. However, I am open to any ideas that can shorten some things and make the article more concise and to the point. However, it's hard to determine what everyone would like to see or how much detail to include when nobody has given feedback on how far they would like us to go. Link87 03:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

New image added to the Great Flood article
Hey, Chris! I noticed that you uploaded a drawing of Link and Ganondorf battling at the end of The Wind Waker. The picture's nice and everything, but unfortunately we don't really allow Fan Art being uploaded to an important article such as Great Flood (or at least, I don't THINK we do). The new section you added is fine and everything, but I'm afraid the art is not going to be able to stay. Hopefully you'll understand our reason behind this, since if we allow one piece of fan art to stay at an article, then people will soon think it's ok to do so (not to mention we have to get the artist's permission to use it on our Wiki anyway). Thanks! Dany36 17:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's how it must be, that's how it must be. I understand what you're saying, though I do think some policies could be put in place to allow certain images of certain quality. The image is also featured on the main page as well, another reason why I thought most of you approved of it anyway. But as I said, if that's how it must be, that's how it must be. On the other hand, I do have an idea to replace the picture though, the one I had intended to use originally in fact. I will show you what it looks like in a moment. Link87 17:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh...whoops. I already replaced it with one. Sorry! It's sort of the same thing, except the official picture (unless you had another one in mind?). And the reason that image is on the front page is because the news that several Zelda sites post get featured in the main page of the Wiki page, so it's not necessarily saying we approve of that picture, it just happened to be featured on another Zelda site. Also, I'm gonna take this opportunity to ask...are you done with the Hyrule page? I'm just wondering since I'd like to get started on the references and such, so, yeah. ;p Dany36 17:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, you read my mind, that's the exact image I was going to use, but I thought I'd get the full image and put it in, so I hope you won't take offense at that. It's the same image, just shows the background of water better. And we are about halfway done with the Hyrule page, so here's what we can do: let me finish up with the Twilight Princess section, and as soon as I am done with it, you can start the sources for everything from the beginning all the way through the "Appearances by Game" section. That would be about halfway I'd say. The "Minor Appearances" and "Locations and Landmarks" sections are still under construction, but anything besides those you can go ahead and start with. And again, thank you so much for offering to help with those, this article's been a bit overwhelming, lol. Link87 17:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice
I've been sitting on the sidelines here and I've noticed a pattern. You seem to be highly protective of the pages that you are working on. And you tend to revert edits to those pages that you did not have something to do with. You have complained that no one was editing these pages, but now that they are you are basically claiming the articles as your own territory. I feel I again must stress that no one owns articles on this wiki and all articles are open to edit by anyone. I know you say you know this, but your actions speak differently than your words. This creates a source of hostility between you and other users. It's disruptive, harassing behavior and it would not be responsible for us as staff to let it continue. Consider this a warning. If I see this kind of behavior from you again, I'll have no choice but to put a ban in place lasting anywhere from a day to a week, depending on how you behave. I do hope it never comes to that, and I certainly hope you don't want that either. But the rules exist for a reason and no one is above them. Calm down and behave, and then we can forgo a messy banning. 07:24, September 14, 2009 (UTC)