User talk:Trusilver/archive8

Sara Tavares

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the Sara Tavares page as G3 vandalism. I can understand that there was a lot of vandalism in the most recent versions of the article but there were previous versions which were ok so I cannot see how it meets the speedy criteria. Could you take another look and restore it, possibly keeping the vandals versions deleted? Thanks. Davewild (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking on it. Give me a few minutes. Trusilver 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. There were so many layers of vandalism on the article that I had to dig very, very deep down to find that there really was an article underneath it all. I found what I think is the most complete and unvandalized edit. Take a look at it and see if it looks right to you. I'm going to continue going through the other deleted edits and see if there is anything else valuable to the article that got lost in the vandalism. Trusilver 08:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best version there that I could see, (I reverted to this version last night which is how I saw the article) some of the history will need to restored in order to comply with the GFDL however. Thanks for the quick restoration. Davewild (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blocking user

Thanks for pointing the block cannon at Medusashield. tedder (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem. :) Trusilver 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

having said that, this guy must be related: Jammintime. Is there a way to get a fast checkuser to see if we can block the IP that is creating the accounts? I only know of the formal checkuser process, which seems to take days or weeks. tedder (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If I see another vandalism come from him, I'm going to block that one too. It's obviously a sockpuppet. Trusilver 01:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, somebody else already got to him. Trusilver 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: vandalism

how was that vandalism 76.252.77.225 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope you aren't expecting me to legitimize your comment with a real answer. At best your addition was senseless nonsense. At worst it was an attack on a Wikipedia editor. Trusilver 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vandalism discussion

Are you aware of this current discussion that started with a comment by Jimmy Wales, and got into the media? [1] and [2] As an anti-vandalism type, I thought you might be interested. I'm trying to suggest more sophisticated technical solutions might be more useful than an immediate community discussion, and I was hoping to see other anti-vandalism editors contributing to the discussion. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I'll take a look at it in a little while. Trusilver 03:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. I don't know how to PM you so I am doing this here. Sorry about that edit I made (about sea spiders). Not only was it lazy of me to edit the article rather than it's talk page but on closer inspection I was also incorrect. Now for something entirely different: you appear to be an admin. Could you explain to my why this page was deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFE

It's for an open source, multi-language game engine that myself and many others are working on. It's years old and has a dedicated team designing the engine with 4 different game development teams based on it. You can learn more here: http://www.fifengine.de/module-pagesetter.phtml

Wikipedia is, of course, not an advertisement service, but I should certainly think this is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article, especially if an elaborate, accurate one has already been written. Not notable? To who, somebody who doesn't know about it? This isn't Britanica. If an article is informative, accurate, and non-trivial, and gets a couple of thousand hits per year then deleting it makes no sense beyond satisfying somebody random admin's need to feel important - what is conserved exactly? Bandwidth? If people don't visit it much then it won't use much bandwidth in the first place, if people do visit it then it's exactly the sort of thing that should be on wikipedia! Iheartpython (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I have gone over the deletion logs for that article and found that it was deleted twice. The first time it was speedy deleted on September 23rd of 2006 for failing to meet notability standards. The second time was in November of last year, it was giving a WP:PROD tag and deleted after nobody challenged it. If you feel that the article should be there, then try to find some sources that pass WP:V. If you aren't sure about them, link me to them and I will give you an idea whether or not they will stand up to notability requirements. I have had some experience with an article like this in the past, and I have learned that there are about five thousand privately designed game engines floating around the internet, and about forty-nine hundred of them aren't notable enough for inclusion. But if you can find the right sources, I will send you a copy of the old article and help you get it rewritten in a way it won't be deleted again. Also... you might want to get the input of a User:Inclusionist. I personally can't stand the guy, but there's nobody in Wikipedia that is better at saving articles that otherwise would get deleted. Let me know if there's any way I can help. Trusilver 05:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klahowya Secondary School

Hi

Sorry to bother you about this, but you were the last reverter and as I am a little inexperienced I thought it best to contact you

The article has had several reverts, but I just came across it on a random article session. There is a line which doesn't sound quite right 1st line 1st para:-
"after the Central Kitsap High School student body became too large or fat."

Didn't want to get it wrong so please can you help ? Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I went back to the earlier versions of the article and it appears that was just good 'ol everyday vandalism. It's gone now :). Thanks for letting me know. Trusilver 08:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs - best we get the worms out the woodwork wherever they stick their heads up lol --Chaosdruid (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maria_Takagi&diff=266712562&oldid=266711876 why did you reverted the article? that's truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.182.7 (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might not be aware that you did it, but the reason I reverted was because you deleted the reflist to that article along with the changes that you made. Please be careful not to do that. Trusilver 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.182.7 (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAT (architects)

Can you tell me, or put in my user subpace, what was here the two times before when this article was deleted? I'm curious, as I'm going to create Fashion Architecture Taste which is the name of the same architecture / art firm.

Also, thank you very much for your kind and generous assessment of my work and your suggestions. I'm planning to get back to you when I'm able to formulate an adequate response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no problem. Trusilver 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tru, it was actually quite helpful. Was there anything in the earlier "01:43, 17 March 2007 Vsmith (Talk | contribs) deleted "FAT (architects)" ‎ (content was: 'db-nonsense F.A.T. (Fashion Architecture Tase) are the "beez-n-eez".')" version? Have you told me your take on flagged revisions? Seems to be rather hotly contested. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be lovely to leave a note for whoever worked on the orginals if they're still around. But deletion seems to make it impossible for me to see who they were. I guess there wasn't much there anyway, but still. A pity it couldn't have been redirected to Dutch architecture or somewhere else. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phonebill was the article's original creator. He hasn't edited since March of 2007. Good work on that article, btw. As for flagged revisions, I'm personally in favor of the proposal. It will never gain consensus, so the only chance of it actually going into use is if Jimbo implements it without the community say-so. Trusilver 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spammer

I saw the spam and accompanying edit summary the spammer left on your userpage. These people make me mad. Just wanted to let you know I just reported his blogspot & wordpress blogs to their admins, and am looking to see if I can report his domains to some anti-spam organisation too. That'll probably cost him more than just 30 seconds to recreate. -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help. I rangeblocked him here, so he's not going to be coming back for a little while, at least not from that ISP. Trusilver 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! mandarax • xɐɹɐpuɐɯ 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Trusilver 04:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheFabFour

You see, I should have been more creative and username blocked rather than waiting for another spam attempt. The account was going nowhere - thanks for that! Pedro : Chat 08:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, yeah. I figured it had gone on long enough :) Trusilver 08:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks to you too for your revert of my userpage

Razorflame has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Cheers, Razor flame 14:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks! Trusilver 08:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:DDDD

lol. man it's a good thing I wasn't eating anything or I'd be buying a new computer right now... Thanks for the laugh man. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 17:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't mess with the people making blatantly ridiculous unblock request, then who can you mess with? :) Trusilver 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble brewing?

I haven't followed the discussion in detail, but maybe you could habe a look at this [3]? The comment just above it seems inappropriate despite the author's denials (including on the other editor's talk page). I know feuding of this sort isn't pleasant, but I thought you might be willing to take a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Actually I see some heavyweights are already part of that discussion, so I suppose there may not be any need for additional involvement. Anyway, it seemed a bad bit of business. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah. I had been watching that starting up for a while. It seems to be under control. Trusilver 08:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography

Why are deleting my comments so it can not be disccused what I have said is true, its pronography and against wiki rules and the laws for it to be online where children can freely acces it!--Meiamme (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, there is no law dictating the exclusion of such material in the US, where the Wikipedia servers are located. I suggest that next time, you take the twenty-dollar law class instead of the five dollar one. Second, You obviously have an agenda and are operating an otherwise useless account. Any further vandalism will result in a block.

"First off, there is no law dictating the exclusion of such material in the US" Really you claim its legal to supply it to children? (wiki is not an adults only site)

I suggest the gold start hall montior keeps to that and does not supply his worthless legal opinion! By your revert you just published x rated material in the USA and made it avaliable to children! Does that sound illegal to you?--Meiamme (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. most of what you said was incoherent and unreadable. But to answer the question that I assume is in there somewhere, I suggest you read WP:PORN for more information on your concern. Have a good day. Trusilver 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I didn't make any of those changes, don't have any idea why they look like I made them. Strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.30.195 (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't, then don't worry too much about it. It is quite possible that your IP address was previously used by the person that made the edits. Trusilver 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come to Anus Vagina

They need pictures but have been locked down by religious zealots Apply your same logic please and get some real picture on there! --Meiamme (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing the actual facts behind that statement, I tentatively agree with you. Start by taking it calmly to the talk page and discussing it rather than vandalizing other page to make a point. Trusilver 03:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Lear

How can it be vandalism when I've taken the time to exactly translate the interview word by word and specified the exact timing and the source? I've worked pretty hard on improving this article to get a balanced tone and references and verifications for all info if you check the history page..83.226.168.214 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I reread the whole thing. Sorry about that. The text of the interview was filled with peacock words that set off the vandalism alarm. In proper context and with the source provided, the appear to be relevant and accurate. Trusilver 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a prompt reply, yes I can agree about that, but those are her words - not mine - and the exact quote.. so I couldn't leave those out if it was to be precise and exact, which I think what we're striving for when it comes to quotes. Glad we sorted it out. Thanks again.83.226.168.214 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, have a good evening. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Trusilver 04:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Np. ;-) Take care. Over and out from Stockholm, Sweden. 83.226.168.214 (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Terrorism

Why is it not neutral to list Irgun here? Are you disputing that they were Jewish terrorists? Do you know what neutrality means? The article is biased, I was trying to add to it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously pushing a POV. Every single word you type is dripping with bias. I know quite well what neutrality means, tell me, do you? Most of your edits tonight barely skirt the edge of blatant POV, that one in particular went way over it. Trusilver 07:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which one?93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This[4] was a edit that was designed to push an agenda. All of your talk page comments make it clear where your bias is. Because of this, you need to be twice as careful not to give the impression you are trying to push articles in direction of your own point of view. Trusilver 07:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, don't make personal attacks, and explain why Irgun should not be included in "Jewish Terrorism" - do you disagree that they were jews who described themselves as terrorists?93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall disagreeing with inclusion. It is your slant and bias to the inclusion that I disagree with. Look at the reversion before your edit - It was well written and NPOV. Look at yours - It...wasn't. Trusilver 07:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you object to "jewish terror groups were involved in the creation of israel. " - not the inclusion of irgun as a jewish terrorist organisation? How would you phrase it?93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I definitely would include Irgun as a Jewish terrorist organization. If they aren't, then who is? But "Jewish terror groups were involved in the creation of Israel" give the definite implication that the involvement was direct and not just paralleling its creation. That's far more conjecture than it is documented fact. It's the subtleties of the phrasing that suggest the deeper meaning. Trusilver 08:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit sounds slightly awkward, but is much more neutral in my opinion. Trusilver 08:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad - am not wishing to be biased, but to correct and build a great encyclopaedia! - Bit worried someone else will remove it though93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this should move to the talk page there?93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, go right ahead. I'm not sure how much weight just my opinion gives to it though, building consensus on Israel-related articles is like trying to shove an egg through a pinhole. I wish you the best of luck on it though. Sorry if I came off a little bit irritable at first - We are right in the middle of the three hour period in my time zone that for some reason sees the most pro-Palestinian vandalism. Trusilver 08:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. I see a lot of pro-Israeli bias that won't compromise, and I know the pro-Palestinians can be crude. Would be great if you could put something nice on my talk page! must sleep 8.21am here!93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the barn star! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. Have a good evening. Trusilver 08:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia, only biased editors see pro-A or pro-B editors.

Other only argue with facts, preferably from wp:rs secondary sources.

That is done in the talk pages of all xxx-terrorist articles.

There have been actions of terrorism during the mandate period performed by zionist organisation, of course. BUT :

there were many (and in fact a majority of) actions that were not terrorism but that were violent, such as riposts and attacks performed in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-39, 1945-47 and during the 6 months civil war between November 1947 and May 1945. Typically by Haganah and Palmach, that were armed zionist organisation, that used violence, but no wp:rs sources classify as terrorist.
for some of these actions, there is disagreement among wp:rs sources to state if these were performed with the goal of terrorizing people of in the context of the usual struggle of any liberation movement. And that is for these reasons that terrorism is one of the wp:words to avoid...

Ceedjee (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceedjee, my issues with 93.96.148.42's edits have been resolved. If you have further issues with it, please take it his talk page rather than mine. Thank you. Trusilver 20:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

This courtesy notice is being offered on your talk page as you have been active in music related discussions in the past. A discussion of a proposed wording change to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" - Criteria 6 is underway on the Notability (music) talk page. Your feedback is appreciated. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I am looking into it. Trusilver 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on Martin Lindstedt page

Thanks for reverting those recent edits on the Martin Lindstedt article. While I have generally been keeping a very close eye on that page, the allegation (which has been made repeatedly) that I am somehow a follower of Martin Lindstedt is entirely false. On the contrary, I have had dealings with Martin online, and am thus very familiar with his views (which I don't share), and his legal case. While I don't agree with his political/theological worldview, I do believe he is being railroaded, and the fact is that the man was arrested almost four years age, and has yet to be formally charged with any criminal offense. Martin is an almost friendless (widely hated, in fact), penniless man in rural Missouri, and I don't want this article to be used as a platform by people who wish to unfairly paint him as a child molester. The fact is, I believe he will be vindicated of those allegations (which arose in connection with a child custody dispute, as is very characteristic of false allegations of child abuse), and like I said, despite being arrested for child molestation almost four years ago, no formal criminal complaint has been filed by the District Attorney's Office against him. Within that context, I think it is very wrong, both morally, and in terms of accuracy, for those people who despise Martin Lindstedt (and its fair to say he's gone out of his way to make many enemies over the years) to attempt to use his article as a platform for calling him a pedophile, when he was yet to even be charged with such an offense, let alone convicted of it. So thanks again, whatever your motive, for not letting some agenda-driven person pack that article with a lot of unpleasant statements about poor, beleagured Martin. Most people think he's a complete jerk, and I can understand that, but what the Hell? He may be a bit of a knucklehead, but I happen to like him in spite of all that. However offensive his views may be, no one has ever accused him of doing anything to hurt another human being (prior to this ludicrous farce stemming from the child custody dispute). So forgive my verbosity, and thanks again. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. And although your edits look good, please be careful you don't place yourself in a postion that is going to violate. WP:COI. Have a good evening. Trusilver 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How

Just please clarify how my CluBot POST was vandalism. Thank You I am trying to bevery cooperative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingfan4lifendeath (talk • contribs) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if that was not meant to be vandalism. However, you erased part of the formatting of that page as you added your message. Please be careful when you are editing. If you have any questions about this or anything at all, feel free to ask me! :) Trusilver 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey man

I was wondering exactly what i did wrong with adding links to Virtual Globetrotting on Leonard Riggio's page a little bit ago? could you help me figure it out?, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallybanner (talk • contribs) 04:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I reverted this link because it does not conform to the Wikipedia external links policy. The site that you had linked to is not acceptable as an external link or a reference because there is no way to ascertain its reliability. From what I understand as I looked over the site, anyone is able to make changes or note on addresses. Because of this, and the lack of oversight, there is no way to 'prove' that the person in question actually lives there. I hope this answers you question. If you have any others, please let me know. Trusilver 04:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Congratulations and good luck. Trusilver 23:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Tru, since you offered..., would you mind checking what was at Tony Fretton before it was deleted? Much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much there:

Tony Fretton AA Dip RIBA ARB

Founded Tony Fretton Architects in 1982. After graduating from the Architectural Association School of Architecture he worked at Arup Associates. As well as being the Principal Designer of all projects, he is active in the discourse on design through lectures, seminars and writing.

Teaching posts include Unit Master at the Architectural Association, School in London from 1988-1992, Visiting Professor at the Berlage Institute Amsterdam and the Ecole Polytechnique Ferderale de Lausanne in 1994-96. Since 1999 he has been Professor of Architectural Design and Interiors at the TU Delft the Netherlands. He is currently teaching a semester at the Graduate School of Design, Harvard, Cambridge MA, USA (Spring 2005).

Did a little bit of digging on it too. Now I only looked for about ten minutes but I wasn't able to find enough to pass WP:N. Maybe you can find something I didn't. Trusilver 03:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tru, much appreciated. I'm impressed that you took an interest and did a little digging. The deleted version of the article appears to be a copvio of http://www.tonyfretton.com/practice.htm, however if you check out their award page http://www.tonyfretton.com/award.htm (some more impressive than others, but cumulatively not too shabby) and their press page for 2008 http://www.tonyfretton.com/press08.htm (again looks like many articles with just mentions, but more than enough substance cumulatively, I think) there looks to be more than enough. There's also a pretty big write up in the book I'm looking at. He seems to come in runner up quite a bit, but I can relate to that. By the way, the reason I'm reluctant to deal with an RFA is because of the dramatics of skeletons in the closet which I've been punished for if I'm open about and would likely be reprimanded for having hidden. So go figure. Maybe some day. Thanks again. I hope you'll check the article out after I've had a chance to write it up. He sounds like a pretty interesting character... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As for the RfA, it is a problem that happens to or has happened to us all. I have long been of the opinion that the most qualified potential admins are the ones that have the hardest time passing RfA. I pass with almost no resistance whatsoever; not because I was a great candidate, but because I had not really involved myself in the politics of Wikipedia yet and thus I had made no enemies nor done anything controversial enough to be opposed. On the other hand, editors like User:Giggy who would make far greater of an admin than I could ever hope to be, stand no chance to pass RfA becuase they have committed the sin of "having an opinion about something." Trusilver 06:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shiite_mullah

Please, look at his contributions after I reported him, he is now posting the video on my talk page and saying he is imagining the girl as me. This does not need a warning, and is similiar to his violent statements on the other talk pages about how such murder should take place. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it appears that he got worse as the night went on. I wish I had still been awake to block him when he started posting again. Oh well, the end result was the same. Have a good day. And let me know if you start seeing similar edits again, I have a feeling that this one will be back. Trusilver 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I believe he usually posts under anonymous IPs and finally got bold enough to (re?)create an account. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see!

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NHRHS! Good to see you! Trusilver 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Not that it's a big deal, but is there a reason you're reporting vandals to AIV right before you block them yourself? Kuru ^talk 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having a difficult time getting Huggle to behave itself lately. Ever since the last update, it hasn't been giving me access to sysop commands. So instead of opening up the block console, it sends an WP:AIV report. I've emailed Gurch about it. Trusilver 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it - just wanted to make sure you weren't slowly slipping into insanity. :) Kuru ^talk 03:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm doing that too, but in ways that are separate from making strange WP:AIV reports. :) Trusilver 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Henderson

Hey, you detected 70.67.163.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comment to me on my talk page as vandalism and reverted. No problem with that, though it wasn't really vandalism. What I was wondering about was if you could take a look at what he's doing on the Dan Henderson article, adding the nickname Decision, as in Decision Dan - a defamatory (am I using that word right?) nickname stemming from him often not finishing mixed martial arts bouts, taking them to a judges decision. He's added an unreliable source for it, and I'm not disputing people are calling him that (as seen with a google search), but it's not really appropriate here imo. Also, would this be a case where the BLP exception to WP:3RR applies, or is it (as I'm guessing) too "mild"? Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at it and I agree. There are serious WP:BLP issues in what he is editing. I'm going to continue to monitor. Trusilver 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your using a bot.

How else could you have reverted my edit less than a second after I made it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.120.190 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bot. Try WP:HG. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 06:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh... Delanoy... I was going to try to convince them it was magic. Trusilver 06:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by 166.38.50.61 Continues

The account 166.38.50.61 has been vandalizing again, check the history logs for Winn-Dixie: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winn-Dixie&curid=543340&action=history What is the next step? You banned that account last time after warning and giving plenty of notice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:166.38.50.61 --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this time he doesn't seem to have come back. I will keep an eye out though. Have a good day. Trusilver 07:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Template:Unblock on hold (User:Blocking administrator)

Just thought I'd stop by and make a note (maybe you forgot), but there is no such user by the name of Blocking administrator (talk · contribs). When you use the {{Unblock on hold|1=blocking administrator|2=original unblock reason|3=~~~~}} template, the text "blocking administrator" should be replaced with the username of the blocking administrator from the block log of the affected user. In the case of Soundout (talk · contribs), the blocking administrator is Orangemike (talk · contribs). The template should then look something like this: {{Unblock on hold|1=Orangemike|2=original unblock reason|3=~~~~}}. Anyway... I have fixed this for you already. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 19:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was nice of you. Trusilver 07:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for removing those comments from my page. That guy has been stalking a bunch of editors under a number of sockpuppets, it's getting more than a bit disturbing. Paul 730 12:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and yeah... I saw that he definitely has it out for you. Trusilver 15:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Benjamin Freedman Article

Hi, Trusliver. Quick revert there! Could you specify as to why my edits were "unconstructive"? Since I don't altogether have a hang of how everything on Wikipedia works, I'd appreciate it if you could respond here (or on the article talk page). Please revert if that was a bot edit. Thanks. 209.183.32.47 (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Take a look at the article again. I was in the middle of reviewing it when you sent this message and I reverted my edit back to your version. It was a false positive mostly because of the words "zionism" and "revisionism" are normally a very easy hint of POV pushing. In the case of your edit though, it looks good to me. Sorry about that. Trusilver 06:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Trusilver. I figured it would have been something like that. Thanks again. 209.183.32.47 (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAS GAS

I am new here and last week I added a link to the GAS GAS article for SMOG under the section Clubs & Organizations which SMOG is a club and you took it out. What did I do wrong? Is it not valuable for Owners of these bikes to know there is club that serves their needs? Also again as I am new would it be wrong to make a article for SMOG? Thanks for any guidance you can give me.Billh491 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your comment. In the future, please leave them at the bottom of the page rather than the top. I rarely glance at the top except just by accident. As far as your question goes, please take a look at Wikipedia's external link policy, hopefully that answers all of the questions you might have. Trusilver 06:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said I am new. Well I looked over the page you sent me to and based on what I saw and how you read it there would never be any outside links allowed. I don't know why you banned my link maybe there is not enough new info on the SMOG page maybe you think the page is nothing but an ad to join the group. I just wanted to let people know the group was out there. As I said I put it in the Clubs & Organizations section. Well since you said you would ban my ip address if I posted it again I guess you are the final judge and jury on the subject. Thanks for making my first attempt at adding to Wikipedia an utter failure.Billh491 (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that your "first attempt" at editing Wikipedia was to spam a link to a website that you obviously have a vested interest in promoting on as many articles as you could find, I will lose very little sleep over that. Trusilver 05:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an interest in Spanish dirt bikes and I only put links to the club for Spanish Motorcycle Owners Group on the pages of bikes that the club represent and as stated in the section Clubs & Organizations of the page. If I was putting spam links on every article I could find it would have been a lot more places. And if I was a spammer would I register with a name I use at other forums? In fact I would like to produce an article about SMOG will you allow me to do so? Billh491 (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me?

I tried to get help on the admin noticeboard, but I'm just being ganged up on and attacked. Then I tried to report the person undoing my edits and vandalizing, but you and other people keep removing the report. I don't know what else to do! They won't leave me alone, and I can't edit because all that hard work is instantly reverted! Here is the problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_please.3F

Please help! UnitedRhapsody (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread shows most editors believe UnitedRhapsody is the current sock of Fragments of Jade, most recently reincarnated along the same lines as +20 EXP. Dayewalker (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into it right now. Trusilver 06:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors my foot! This is just a bunch of bullies ganging up on someone and trying to label them as a "sock", though I still have no idea what that's supposed to be. UnitedRhapsody (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tru. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is look at my contributions. All of my edits were good, then, out of nowhere, people are attacking me. I still don't get why. I'm stuck unable to edit until this matter is resolved, because they'll just revert my edits, no matter what they are. UnitedRhapsody (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from what I'm seeing concerning your editing history and editing patterns, there is sufficient reason to suspect you are a sock of Fragments of Jade. Trusilver 06:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barkha Dutt

lets discuss about Barkha Dutt Articles but u cant delete vital info fm the articles when there is ref . lets discuss r u hav free time now.

opps sorry i forget to sign --HypocrisySlayer (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just becuase something is referenced doesn't mean you can insert your obvious POV into it. Articles have to be written from a neutral point of view. Trusilver 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sapin sapin

I turned this page into a redirect, but I see something was deleted there previously. If you don't mind fulfilling my curiosity you can let me know what was there. Otherwise no worries. I doubt it was much, but I always find it intersting to see what gets deleted instead of built up. ;) Not that I don't speedy my share of bits and pieces... Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there, it was just a vandalism edit. SAPINSAPIN repeated 280 or so times, it was CSD's about fifteen minutes later. Trusilver 06:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking for me. Much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Watson

Hi, I've unprotected Paul Watson now that mediation has started. Obviously it can go back if the parties start warring rather than mediating. Cheers Kevin (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've added it to my watchlist and will protect it again if I notice that it starts getting out of hand. Trusilver 07:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Now is this guy doing anything else but reverting ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheRedPenOfDoom. Is this really justifyied? Happy Valentine's Day

Warrington (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your issue. Was there something in particular you have a problem with? Trusilver 17:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was more like a general question. You can not source something which is not there. If someone goes and deletets everything added which has no sources or appear not to have than those parts can not be sourced any more.

And one more thing, why delete like this when one can try to find sources before deleting things?

Isn't it better to ask for a reference with a citation needen tag? like with this edit, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiculturalism&diff=prev&oldid=270626186

Warrington (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calebrod3294

Thank you for blocking him. I've spent a lot of time cleaning up his ever widening circle of destruction. This is a job that needed doing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

No problem. Let me know if you see him come back under a different username. Trusilver 16:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. If he comes back to his old haunts, I'll be there (God willing, and if I'm not out of town). His pattern became readily apparent when he took out Lansing, Michigan, and I monitored his every edit. Some of them were beyond my user-grade to rectify, and there were so many that I shot up a flare.7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Block/ban limerick

There once was a young man called Willy
He thought he was hotter than chilli
He moved all the pages
Admins got in rages
He's banned now - his page moves were silly.

He's banned because he was abusive-
ly socking, and that was conclusive
Checkuser confirmed
and I have now learned
That there's not much that rhymes with abusive!

A block is a technical measure
But to use it wisely we must never
Use cool down blocks
Even if they are cocks
We must stay calm whatever the weather!

The difference between these two odd things
Is that one prevents all second comings
It's issued with caution
A permanent abortion
From Wiki and all of its darlings.

A ban can be issued by Jimbo
the community or one of it's bimbos
a block is a technical
measure that's flexible
In that you're not gone - you're in limbo.

You ask, you get. I suck at this. — neuro^(talk) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my line about bans being able to be issued by administrators in in fact talking about the nature that if no administrator will unblock, then someone is banned. — neuro^(talk) 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! That's got to find a place on my userpage :) Trusilver 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernese Mountain Dog

We are having a problem with a persistent vandal. Please help. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

He appears to have stopped after being warned, but I will continue to watch that IP address. Thanks. Trusilver 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We inundated him with warnings. If it works great. If not, then it is good to have friends on alert in high places. Like Las Vegas, the eye in the sky has its uses, and can do things we mere plebes can't. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

No problem at all. Happy editing. Trusilver 02:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

207.72.183.89

Please monitor this user, who is currently exhibiting a pattern of vandalism. Thank you 7&6=thirteen (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Page I Created

Hey Trusilver, first off thanks for the adoption. I recently created a page about a local regional airport of mine, do you think it still needs expanding? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joliet_Regional_Airport) And how do a make the airport code KJOT or JOT redirect to this article. Thanks Creez34 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any subject that has verifiable information that isn't available on Wikipedia can potentially be expanded. Personally, the article looks as though it could use a little bit of work. If you check out both KJOT and JOT, they both already have articles attached to those names, so you wouldn't be doing a redirect to this article. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to possible put a disambiguation notice on the top of the KJOT article noting that "for Joliet Regional Airport, see:" which you will notice at the tops of a lot of other articles. If you have any questions on how to do this, or what the standard format is, I will show you. Trusilver 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Truilver I added the disambiguation, I am now going to work on exapading the article. Creez34 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which closed with 83 ayes to the right, one no to left and five abstaining users!
Sabre (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck. Trusilver 21:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind

please check the link before reverting again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.212.126 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Include it in the article without the obvious POV slant and I won't revert it. The revision as you have made looks like it was made by someone pushing an agenda, as I'm quite sure it was. Include it in the article in a way that leads readers to have some shred of an idea what you are talking about. Also, give me a link of some kind next time be more specific to what revert you are referring to. I rarely research unspecific and vague comments on my talk page. Trusilver 06:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article says nothing about Jerry Sanders. I will support not including it until a source actually states so. I also agree with Trusulver, that the way it was phrased is either harboring an agenda or poorly written. --Bobak (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Terrorism

Have you read the talk page on this one? There has been discussion for two months as to what jewish terrorism means. People argue with out any references that it means religious terrorism. Please familiarise yourself with this, and explain where my bias is. I am not perfect, but I do not understand quite what you mean.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time we've gone through this. You have a tendency to edit from an extremely biased POV. One thing I told someone a long time ago is that you are editing from the neutral point of view if I can read your work and have no clue what your opinion is on the matter whatsoever. In contrast, I read your writing and have no problem at all ascertaining exactly what you feel about the subject matter. Trusilver 07:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you make a personal attack, instead of explaining where your idea that "Jewish terrorism" must mean religious terrorism comes from. I have googled it, and a lot of other stuff comes up, from reputable sources - if you have the references please share them - there has been a request for a reference since december, and I do not understand why you have not provided one.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would have been great, if you were just providing references. That's not exactly what you were doing, you were finding references to use to slant the article to your own point of view. (Which, by the way, we have a term for that too.) Also, blogs are not reliable sources, period. Trusilver 16:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages!

Hello, Trusilver. You have new messages at Ironholds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.