User talk:Trusilver/archive7

MMMMMMMMMMMM or whatever....

Hmm, policy's changed a bit since I used to handle username blocks. They used to have a list of examples of confusing usernames. Also, I was just saying that username blocks in general are usually done without consulting the editor. You could say I was just trying to justify Bearian's actions. Anyway, thanks for the update. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It caught my attention as well, I wasn't aware the policy had changed until I scrutinized it for the purpose of this guy. Trusilver 03:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

PashtoonBoy

I've unblocked him, because he received all four warnings within one minute and was blocked shortly afterwards, so he probably just didn't read them up before it was too late. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that whatsoever. Thanks for letting me know. Trusilver 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

A sigh and a smile here! :) Thanks for the barnstar! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:vandalizm

What Vandalism, what exactly have i done that is considered vandalism?!?! I HAVENT EVEN EDITED ANY PAGES YETUser:TheArticleSlayer —Preceding comment was added at 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You created an inappropriate page, which I think you are more than aware of. Trusilver 04:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How is creating a userbox inappropriate?!?! TheArticleSlayer

The userbox was divisive and meant only for disruption. Which is why it was deleted, and why you were warned. Trusilver 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note the contribs (so far) for TheArticleSlayer. Compare them with the contribs (so far) of User:Fabmaster, and possibly even User:Visimar. Interesting little circle of contribs today. hmmm.. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Keeper76#Wow

Without being obliged to comment at all on what's going on, could you confirm/deny if your 19:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC) comment refers to me? Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, my issue with question 4 was really a small one and while I'm not sure that it was an appropriate question to be asked at an RfA, the true problem wasn't in the question itself but in the level that certain individuals decided to make something big out of what should have been a non-issue. That was a question that a lot of standing admins would have gotten wrong, to expect it out of a candidate was a little bit foolish, to oppose him over it was downright stupid. But overall, that was completely secondary, it was the religion bit that got me pissed off at that RfA. But in all seriousness, if you did something that I found to be out of line or borderline assholeish, I wouldn't be discussing it anywhere but on your talk page. Trusilver 08:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Colour me relieved. I agree with you about the religion stuff, but due to strong views on that IRL, I don't comment on that here as it probably won't end too well. And yeah, in retrospect, asking that question may not have been the best idea. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

EC; to your addition...:) (no major comment!) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh... by the way. My talk page is a British-spelling free zone. I demand you take that u out of color at once! Trusilver 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Shall we share some Earl Gray tea? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:CalebBenefiel

Hi Trusilver. I read this user's unblock request but saw you stated you're dealing with it - I would agree that the account be unblocked, but I'll leave it to you - I'd support you if you chose to unblock. Neıl ☎ 12:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mangojuice beat me to it but we all seem to be of the mind that there was no harm intended in this user's edits. It seems that it was a misunderstanding. Trusilver 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This

link made me spit diet mountain dew through my nose. Excellent work, adminsupreme...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, my one true joy on admin functions is dealing with the most bizzare aspects of RFU. Trusilver 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Email blocks

Hey, Trusilver. Just a reminder that email should not be disabled as a default when blocking accounts. Per the blocking policy, email should only be disabled in response to abuse of the email function. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to automatically block email in the case of vandalism-only accounts with no substantive contributions. The odds of them suddenly deciding to send emails that serve a purpose are nearly nil. The odds of them spamming the email account of the person blocking them with ream upon ream of hate mail is relatively high. (I know... I get it regularly.) Trusilver 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is stated quite explicitly in the blocking policy. If you believe we should change our approach to disabling email, I suggest opening a discussion on one of the WP:PUMPs or on the blocking policy talk page. Until then, however, it is against policy to preemptively disable the email function. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 22:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, have a good day. Trusilver 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. That was worded a little differently than it actually appeared in my mind. That was not me brushing you off, that was me saying I'm giving your observation my consideration.) Trusilver 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have read up on the entirety of the blocking policy and I agree with your assessment. Trusilver 03:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Will Atkinson (Musician)

Hi Trusilver, could you please review your speedy deletion of this page? The article stated that subject - a mouth organ player - was "the most influential moothie player of the last century within this genre", which seems clear to me an assertion of notability of the subject. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, give me a little while. I've got a busy day today but I will review it as soon as I get a chance. Trusilver 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Trusilver 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Trusilver.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Trusilver; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Downtown Altoona, Pennsylvania

I tried out {{NoAutosign}}, but it didn't seem to have any effect. Any additional tips? Thanks! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Trusilver/archive7, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

- and for the kind comments. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Trusilver. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle deletions

Hey. Please be careful with Twinkle's auto-deletion features. You deleted a bunch of pages such as 1 E1 m under CSD R1 while fixing up some page moves. These obviously should not have been deleted. --- RockMFR 17:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

BRC & privacy concerns

Hey Trusilver, would you mind dropping in your opinion here? Thanks. GlassCobra 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Trusilver 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Extension School

Just letting you know I requested semi protection for the article. I figure this should force the IP account to register and thus be more willing to discuss removal of cited material. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. Trusilver 00:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The protection request was denied which I don't completely understand. The IP has made its intention clear that it will continue edit warring once unblocked and despite being blocked in the past has no history of attempting to discuss the edits on the talk page. Can you advise on how to handle the situation in the future since some seem to believe that his blanking is not vandalism? --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I will keep watching the page myself. If I notice that there is a significant amount of abuse continuing on the page, I will protect it myself. Keep me advised as you notice it happening. Trusilver 02:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rodneycwilson (talk · contribs)...another sockpuppet...Seems your conditional unblock is being exploited since he has taken nothing to the talk page of the article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits are not the same. I'm going to watch all the known IP addresses as well as the two accounts and then request a checkuser if necessary. In the meantime I've got all of them including the article and it's talk page on my watchlist. Trusilver 04:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thanks, Trusilver, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

role in afd

Unless you're closing instead of debating, I dont think being an admin gives what you say any special weight at afd. The other few hundred or so of us who participate there never mention it. This is re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro empires.DGG (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not noting your response earlier, but I am finding that I must take more frequent periodic breaks from Wikipedia. Basically, I have a very limited tolerance for those who spend large amounts of time babbling about the bureaucratic minutia of Wikipedia rather than doing something honestly useful. I hit my saturation point sometime around 15:25, 30 July 2008, and have since tried my hardest not to leave the mainspace because I just can't take any more anal retentive morons talking to me. Trusilver 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)

Hey there Trusilver! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!

• Notice delivery by xenobot 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello! You may not know me, but I noticed your name on the list of potential adopters here. Although I didn't join yesterday, I'm seeking Adoption so that I can have some help understanding WP:MOS and one or two policy sections. I'm reasonably interested in aviation among many other topics also. Anyway, I'm not sure whether you're still around, but if you are, I was wondering if you would be interested in adopting me? Hope to hear from you. :) \ / (⁂) 09:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Damn, sorry I didn't see this earlier. Under most circumstances I would be more than happy to help you out any way I can. (and if you send me messaged, I will still be happy to.) However, as I put on my user page, I'm having a difficult time with Wikipedia right now and tend to disappear for eight or ten days at a time because I'm so unbelievably sick of this place and a large majority of the self-important asshats who reside here. I've reached my saturation point with stupidity and the only way I can continue to have a presence here is by being as detached as possible. Trusilver 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Trusilver! Thanks for your reply. I have since had an offer for adoption, so I'm pretty much set. Sorry to hear of your dissatisfaction with Wikipedia. I guess there comes a point when politics outweighs the reward. No matter how good an organisation is, (Wiki, Gaming Networks, etc), politics and stupidity are inescapable. If you don't like politics, don't vote. Maybe focus on article work? I don't have much experience, but surely there is something around here that can still be worthwhile?

On another note, I noticed you're an airline pilot! Must be a lot of ego's around that joint. ;) Is the airline coping with the times? \ / (⁂) 09:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Business is slowing down for us just the same as it is for everyone else. As for ego issues, you'd really be surprised. Most of us got all of that out of the way when we were in the service. We tend to be really laid back people, not what most people expect. Trusilver 06:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

August 1, 2003

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [1]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw the review a little bit too late. Don't sweat it all too much and just merge the articles together. The idea of a day by day accounting of current events on Wikipedia is downright stupid and this should have been closed as a merge. Get used to things like this. I've basically lost most of my morale when it comes to Wikipedia because of the travesties that occur both within mainspace and within projectspace. In mainspace you have arrogant asshats who know nothing about what they write scaring away the actual experts who attempt to contribute and then getting away with it due to knowledge of Wiki policies. On projectspace you have general jackasses like Sandstein, who should never have been made administrators to begin with, holding the project hostage with their vague and bureaucracy-ridden agendas. It's been almost a year now since I have been able to have anything except contempt for the project. Trusilver 17:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your exceptionally kind and generous remarks and the barnstar. They are very welcome and much appreciated. Wikipedia is a maze of policies and personalities I'm not sure I understand fully, and there are aspects that cause me great distress, but it's a pleasure to be involved with the many dedicated, passionate and caring people who contribute here. Thanks again. Your gesture was very helpful to me, and I hope I will be as helpful and supportive to others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Just one thing though... don't get burned out. I have seen a whole lot of people (myself included) who started off very strong get burned out within a few months. I got over that burnout and came back after a few months, but a lot don't. Trusilver 19:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about getting burned out than I am about stepping on the wrong set of toes and getting blocked.

I read some of your userpage and I'm wondering 1) why you choose to handle the more bureaucratic matters if you don't enjoy them and 2) if you follow the politics of the site and where I might be able to discuss and ask questions about these issues without having all kinds of heat brought down on me. In particular I'm concerned about policies and approaches that discourage new users, but I've also stumbled on some of the discussions about the Wizard of Oz type machinations that go on behind the curtain. Sorry to bring up more serious topics after your kind barnstar and generous comments. I hope I'm not proving the axiom that no good deed goes unpunished...ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I am more than happy to talk about anything you want to. The question there isn't whether I'm willing to give you the information you want, the question is more to do with whether or not I give the 'acceptable' answers. I'm probably not the best role model if you are looking for a prosperous Wikicareer. I dislike bureaucracy, as you have already noticed. I feel that there are a large number of editors, admins mostly, who serve no real purpose except to make the system more unwieldy than it already is.

Consider the following two facts: A) Wikipedia claims to be neither a bureaucracy nor governed by statute. and B) Wikipedia has more than 300 pages of policy and guidlines JUST pertaining to WP:MOS. These two facts cannot exist at the same time, in order for one to be true, the other is disproven. In the years that I have been here, I have seen Wikipedia suffer from serious bureaucratic creep. I would love to see this trend reversed. As far as I'm concerned, no policy change or clarification that has been made in the last two years has improved the quality of the encyclopedia one bit. During that time we have filled gigabytes of harddrive space with nothing more than the machinations of people with too much time on their hands.

But as I pointed out - if you have lofty ambitions for your time at Wikipedia. Specifically, if you are looking toward maybe becoming an administrator, then I'm probably not someone you want to emulate. My way of thinking is not one that gets people through RfA :). I also distinguish between people who work primarily in projectspace at legitimate tasks and those that work in projectspace on assinine tasks. Someone who does no article work but spends hours a day cleaning up vandalism is every bit as important to the encyclopedia as someone who writes articles. Someone who spends hours a day dickering over the minutia of WP:MUSIC or WP:RFA is a thoroughly useless contributor and we would be better off without them.

To that end, I am a strong supporter of many, many of Wikipedia's persona non grata like Giano and SlimVirgin, and I consider ArbCom to be the pinnacle of uselessness. Now obviously, we need to be able to maintain the infrastructure necessary to make the encyclopedia function. But I think that's ALL we should do, not forgetting that the project is the reason we are here, not perpetuating the bureaucracy surrounding the project. Trusilver 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your candid response. I agree. Indeed I have stumbled on Giano's user page and he is a Wikipedia SuperHero. Of course there are many others. I wrote an article of sorts that I'd be interested for you to read some time... but maybe I'll wait until after the holidays. There are certainly a lot of frustrated people, and I think that's unfortunate. The writing and collaboration that go on here are amazing, and the resource that's been built is pretty awesome. I feel like a piddler when I see the work some of the better contributors put out. And this is a fantastic resource and a great place to write and learn, so I'm very thankful for the opportunities offered me here, even as I recognize how much of the other "stuff" one has to wade through. You didn't answer, I don't think, about why you mess with the bureaucratic part if it's frustrating? Trying to fix things for the better? Well, Happy Holidays and Thanks again for your generosity and kindness. And Happy Thanksgiving wherever you are, even if you don't celebrate gluttony as we Yanks do, but judging from your user page I'm guessing you're "one of us" :). Gobble gobble gobble.ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What would you do with this Places you must see in Malaysia article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD A7. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and aside from a subjective suggestion on what would be a good place to see while you are there, it doesn't assert notability. Trusilver 04:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you make of the "List of" controversies? Here's one I came across doing new page patrol: List of massacres in Peru. And can you do me one other favor and check out this article Glamour (charm) and the disambiguation page Glamour (disambiguation). It passed an AfD, but the editor who created it keeps trying to put it in the disambig according to an old definition given by the one source for the article, a speech. I guess I should just leave it alone, but it seems misleading without making it clear that this is one person's take. And then if you want more, there was Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit, but I tagged it as a hoax, so hopefully it will get looked into? I'm just trying to see if I'm approaching these articles right. Thanks for your help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm funny like that. I like the description on the disambiguation page to actually match the article rather than saying something completely different. I don't know why, perhaps it's called being accurate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as Glamour (presentation) goes. It's a garbage article that is filled with subjective nonsense that makes the entire project look bad. That being said, the AfD discussion ended in no consensus and as such it remains. Disambiguation pages are not meant to provide definitions on the word, but rather to help differentiate between multiple uses of the same word or name. As such, it is more appropriate to list the name of the article rather than a redirect for the article. Trusilver 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, whatever, it is a stub, and quite a new one. And I don't think it makes the wikipedia look worse than what was there, namely, having a definition that said that glamour was a magazine which at the time was the article, or failing that according to the disamb page at the time purely and simply 'beauty' [2] which evidently isn't quite right either; or a red-linked magic spell, or a bunch of pop culture stuff, so I am unrepentant.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess the problem I'm having is: one of the uses the word glamour has is as a word with a certain definition. But now there is that article and a description of glamour based on a different definition, and it has replaced the accurate definition that used to be on the disambiguation page. It seems weird that an encyclopedia would give a misleading idea of what a word or concept means. Can you clarify what you mean by "listing the name of the article rather than a redirect"? I'm a little confused. I hope everything is well with you and that you had a good Thanksgiving. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Any comment on the List of massacres? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean that it is appropriate to put the actual name of the article which in this case is Glamour (presentation) as the link on the disambiguation page rather than Glamour (charm) which is a redirect to the actual article. As for "list of" articles... I dislike them. They are difficult to maintain at best and NEVER complete unless it is something stupid like List of wikis about St. Louis, Missouri (the article existed at one time...seriously). At worst, they are so general that they are a total nightmare to keep maintained. But, they have a tendency to pass AfD discussions, so we are stuck with them.Trusilver 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rouge admin needed

Hi, we have a move debate at talk:David Irving that is currently 6 nil unless we count the proposer who has yet to sign or give a reason. As the debate is moving to accusations of electron wastage, how extreme does it have to get before snow can be decreed? ϢereSpielChequers 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I read over the article and the talk page and closed the discussion. Every time I think I have seen someone push the envelope of WP:NCR violating, someone always proves to me that they can be even more gratuitous about it. Trusilver 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Trusilver, thou art a true Rouge admin, that one could have bubbled over for days. ϢereSpielChequers 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck with the article and let me know if you need anything else. Trusilver 03:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind the buttocks - here comes the beer

Have an unyielding beer on me. Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion. This is an acknowledgment of your participation in the RfA of: SilkTork *YES!. 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

didn't mean to beat the horsey

Hi Trusilver,

I am sorry, i did not want to beat a dead horse i made my comment at Guido's talk a minute before you declined, when i had seen that first i would not have commented. I wanted to give diffs bc people were asking the blocking admin and i did not see them. sorry, RetroS1mone talk 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah no, don't worry about it. I just didn't want to see this turn into an unnecessary circus. As far as I'm concerned when it comes to blocks... He's blocked now, he will be back in somewhere to the tune of 20 hours and hopefully everyone can come to terms with the issues of the article. Though what I would really suggest you all do is take the dispute to the next level. I don't think a third (or fourth, or fifth, or sixth) opinion is going to do you any good at this point. I would suggest you all consider taking this to the Mediation Cabal. I would quite happily mediate the dispute if Guido doesn't think that I have become biased because of denying his unblock request. Even if that's the case, there are plenty of other members who would be happy to help. At the very least, it would show that all avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted should this move up the ladder to the next level. Trusilver 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! When some times i get frustrated on WP, an admin like you puts my faith back. RetroS1mone talk 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck. Trusilver 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of medcabal cases linger and die like a woodchuck under a porch, but that doesn't mean this one'll be such a woodchucker. Keep hope alive! That being said, it's very often Guido against multiple, almost always all other editors on the page, while beating a dead horse so hard, sometimes it causes subatomic fusion. If you'd like, I can provide the three or four extensive talk page discussions on whether ME is a synonym for CFS. You may want to talk to User:Carcharoth for his opinion on the matter, as he tried to negotiate on the CFS pages for a while (I don't know how much success he had, at the time my attention was elsewhere). Right now I would say that Guido is the sole editor that sees problems on the page, and in many cases his arguments have been dealt with repeatedly in the past and consensus achieved, to the great aggravation of many contributors. But I'm not exactly a disinterested party, so don't take my word for it. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Trusilver, may I direct your interest to User_talk:RetroS1mone#GDB.27s_talk_page? Generally, posting stuff on GDB's talk page while he's blocked accomplishes little but feed the drama. This dead horse has been beaten, I own a special stick for this purpose. But even I, Beater of Dead Horses, have given up. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am starting to see that. Long ago I learned that it is impossible to argue rationally with someone who is irrational. Occasionally I forget that and need to be reminded of it. This little exercise has accomplished that beautifully. My way of dealing with people like this in the past has been the moderately effective method of just letting them behave like jackasses until they finally work themselves up to a block long enough for me to forget they exist for a little while. Trusilver 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed a permablock hasn't happened yet - it's a tribute to the tolerance of the community and willingness of the involved admins to keep hope alive. I'm tempted to throw it at Jimbo and see what happens - somewhere I read him saying something like "whenever I look into someone posting on my talk page about admin abuse, I'm always amazed they weren't blocked earlier". You really want an entertaining read, slog through the history of GDB's talk page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I just finished reading the entire archive of his talk page on a diff by diff level. And all I can say is.... holy crap. If I were him, I would think of a 24 hour block as a gift. Knowing what I know now, I would have dropped a 3 month block on him. I can only see a handful of positive contributions he has made to the project, and a mountain of negative ones. Trusilver 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a great way to spend a Tuesday? Readers who only peruse mainspace are missing out on such vast swaths of comedy tragedy entertainment gold. The block expires soon, I'm interested to see what the outcome will be. Now, is this case a testimony to the tolerance of the community, or an example of process gone wrong? A question for the philosophers. I'm basically waiting for him to run out of admins - they seem to be less and less willing to intervene; the result could either be absolute freedom to run rampant on wikipedia, or a permablock. I should start a betting pool. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you keep moving to different venues to exclude me? :) Anyway, your (Trusilver's) recent edit to ANI describes GDB as a net positive, which I think is a typo. Actually, the problem is it's ambiguous :) Verbal chat 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dammit! How do you keep finding me! :) Ah yes, I read back over that and I'm just going to call it one of those "Was I high when I typed that??" moments. I corrected it. Trusilver 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Thanks a lot for your appreciation!! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, thank you for your hard work. Trusilver 17:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from me, too. Chergles (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I can clearly see that these edits have been made from the same address, however, not all of them have been made by me. This address is not used only by me. I am not a sockpuppet, never was and never will be, although I do understand your suspicions. Thanks. --Balloholic (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cody macdonald

I'm not sure that this was vandalism - the guy seems to exist - [3] Kevin (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that. I should have CSD'd it under A1 instead of G3. Even if he does exist, it is an unsourced one-sentence article that lacks any real context. I won't have any problem with it should it be rewritten properly. Trusilver 00:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry of CIRIA Deletion

Hello, Edmund6795 here, I was wondering why both my user page[[4]] and the CIRIA[[5]] uploaded article were deleted in the course of a day as a copyright infringement. I not only added the 'hold' function to my upload, but contacted en.permissions@wikipedia.com with ready proof that my CIRIA page had been given copyright permission by the company CEO and core members- particularly as I am a employee of their communications department. I wonder if it would at least be possible to return the sandbox template of my upload to my userpage for revision? Edmund6795 (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Verifiable copyright infringement is deleted immediately regardless of the rationale for it unless and until permission is documented. I would be happy to email a copy of the article as it was before deletion to you provided you register an email address to your user account. Now, supposing that the article is either reworded or permission is accepted for the copyright issues, I would like you to look over WP:COI before editing any further. I'm sure that it's quite possible that your article will be well balanced and accurate, but we are always skeptical of an employee of a company writing an article for the company, especially at the behest of the company itself. I'm sure you can understand my concern. Trusilver 06:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying so promptly. That certainly makes a lot of sense. I am awaiting confirmation proof that the CIRIA material uploaded is allowable in the public domain under a GNU Free Documentation Licence. In the meantime, could you kindly send me back the deleted material to work on in my sandbox until then. As far as I know, my userpage does have a registered email account which is edmund.louis@yahoo.co.uk. I shall also endeavour to have the CIRIA about webpage read to display a GNU copyright certification. As for your skeptism, it is well founded(!)- but my wikipedia upload was designed as an extra-curricular project- not for PR coverage. It seemed logical to have a wiki page, since we are both a not-for-profit NGO- and that our smaller industry affiliates have each a wiki page of their own. I however, will ensure that no bias, gloss, tonal imbalance or unfounded claims appear in my completed article. Kind Regards. Edmund6795 (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I should clarify that although I have verbal confirmation from the CEO, I gather that permissions at Wikipedia require written GNU certification. Edmund6795 (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC) PS: I moved this 'reply' piece a little way up the page as it represents the most recent addition to your discussion page. I hope you will not take offense to this, I don't mean to be come across as self-important and I certainly hope that this does not connote wikipedia 'vandalism'. I only hoped to grab your attention as I now acutely require a saved copy of my CIRIA draft.Edmund6795 (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi Trusilver,

The ANI thread on Guido has been archived. I was content to let it go since it looked like he was voluntarily leaving wiki and the issue was dead. Apparently I was wrong. I'm now calling bullshit, fuckit, and thatsit. Would you assist in the careful drafting of a new ANI thread that explicitly calls for a topic ban, if not outright block, on the basis of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:POVPUSH, WP:TE, WP:DE and WP:NOT? For more context, see GDB's talk page, my talk page and David Ruben's talk page. I'm planning to start a draft at User talk:WLU/RFC#ANI posting. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I only have half an hour or so right now and then I am headed to Cincinnati and back. I will be able to check in on it and add my input later on this evening. Trusilver 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not in a hurry, I'd rather it be clear and pretty much inarguable than fast - many ANI discussions that I've been involved in have gone nowhere because there's too much back and forth and not enough proof. An easy-to-read package is more important than an express post. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that de facto it has begun. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Dear Trusilver, hope you're doing great! Slowly I have become more and more inactive in Wikipedia. But I always know that I'll be back cause I love you guys so much :D . Happy New Year to you. Regards --Tarif from Bangladesh (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tarif! Just the other day I was wondering where you have been lately. It's good to see that you are doing well. Happy New Year! Trusilver 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Kink.com

RFC might be more fruitful if you specified exactly which section you were referring to in the request.Horrorshowj (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my comment relied on the assumption that the reader has the capability of looking at the subheading I was commenting to. I can't spend my whole day pandering for the least common denominator of human intelligence. I have to make the assumption that if I am commenting in the section about the Kayden Faye assault, then the reader probably has the cognitive ability to reach the assumption that I'm probably referring to the article additions concerning the Kayden Faye assault. Trusilver 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So I'll make you a deal

You publish your "unpublished list of the top editors on the project who actually have a clue" and I'll try a bit harder to ignore the useless people. And to not go overseas for a month without telling anyone. Giggy (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I find your terms acceptable. :) Trusilver 15:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk Edit: Chernobyl

So, the word 'No' constitutes vandalism in your book??

It's vandalism when it is unproductive and little more than a random word thrown into a page. Next time try elaborating on what you are talking about with something more than a one word sentence. I'm sure that you could probably manage at least three. Also you see those squiggly things on your keyboard? yep... that button right below the escape key. Add four of those at the end of each edit. It will create something similar to this -----> Trusilver 11:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: the IP's edits

do you think we ought just mass-revert all the edits? some may be worthwhile. if you think they should all be nuked, i have a script that can mass-rv. see also Wikipedia:AN/I#IP_running_unapproved_bot–xeno (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I went through them and it seemed that whatever script that bot was running went a little haywire at a certain point and started to throw around incorrect links. But the early ones that it made seem to be correct. I have picked through them and rolled back the ones that were wrong. In the few situations that I wasn't completely sure, I erred on the side of reverting. Trusilver 05:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

cheers, nice work. –xeno (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:BlassFamily

I've posted a question on his user talk page, regarding your decision to unblock him, even though, to my knowledge, he has made no comment about his shoddy understanding of fair use policy, or the disruption it has caused. — Realist² 22:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

block of User:68.220.175.168

I understand your doubt about this, this user is very odd and deliberately tries to confuse others with their inconsistency, but I can assure you it is User:Bambifan101. Asking for foreign language links to be added to children's film pages, messing around with other people's talk archives, and "yelling" in edit summaries are just a few of his telltale hallmarks. User:Tanthalas39 and User:Collectonian both have lots of experience in this area and can verify this information. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still going over this user's contributions as well as User:Bambifan101's and all known sockpuppets. I will be finished up shortly. Trusilver 04:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the edits of this user are consistent with the editing pattern of Bambifan and his/her/its known socks. I would have just blocked right now except someone else beat me to it. Trusilver 04:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the quick revert on my userpage and block of the vandal. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Trusilver 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

simply south

as far as i'm concerned he's a dick and has been going out of his way to stop me getting my point across... so my edits were justified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.63.128 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One more disruptive edit and you won't have to worry about it anymore. You are one more vandalism away from a block. Trusilver 22:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting that. Simply south not SS, sorry 12:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers :) Trusilver 05:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Collecting user names

You have to admit, Ed Fitzgerald and his collection of public usernames is pretty creepy. Why would someone do that. 71.178.197.11 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But seriously, why do my edits keep getting reverted by Ed. I am trying to add citation tags and remove unsourced material. He goes through my history and reverts most everything. I really don't get it. Now he is threatening me. Maybe you can help.71.178.197.11 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I have only had a few minutes to look into it, but I will check it out when I have a little bit of time. Trusilver 03:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor has apparently taken it as a "threat" that I suggested we take our differences to Dispute Resolution. I don't understand how that can possibly be considered a threat. As to why his IP appears on my "check" list, it's because he or she has made a number of disruptive edits, repeatedly mass deleting entire "popular culture" sections without consensus or even discussion, [6] [7] and I wanted to periodically check to see if they did it again. In the process, I came across some other unnecessary edits and I reverted them, as other editors (Gwen Gale, for instance) undid others.

There's nothing in the least untoward here, unless you want to count 71.178's apparent unwillingness to used established processes to resolve editorial disputes. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I do not see any threat that has occurred, real or implied. I am generally uneasy about published "watch lists", but they aren't expressly prohibited, so my feelings are the matter are just that. 71.178.197.11, my personal opinion of the situation is that you tend to overstep the boundaries of WP:BOLD pretty often. It is one thing to make bold changes and quite another to make changes when others expressly disagree with you, whether policy is on your side or not. In the latter case, that is the reason that we have talk pages, and the reason that we do, in fact, have a dispute resolution process. One other thing though... You might want to consider registering an account with us. There are quite a few editors (and I'm not saying that Ed Fitzgerald is one of them) that attribute an account with a certain amount of legitimacy. Most of the bad edits and vandalism are products of IP users, thus IP users get the pointy end of the stick shaken at them more than anyone else. This is just something to keep in mind. Trusilver 03:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I try as much as possible to deal with edits rather than editors, but I'm as human as the next guy, and the facts that you mention must inevitably color my interactions with IP editors in some way, no matter how much I attempt to deal with them on an equal basis with registered editors. (My own opinion is that non-registered editing shouldn't ne allowed, not for any ideological reason, but because of the massive amount of experience that says that unregistered editors do cause the bulk of vandalism. I also believe that newly registered editors should have a longer probationary period, but neither of these two ideas are likely to be adopted anytime in the near future. I do actively try not to let these positions interfere with my interactions with IP editors.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I only overstep bold because Ed here has done a blanket revert on everything I have done. He never explains his revision or cites policy. I am completely boxed in by this editor. Other editors have made edits that very similar to mine and have not been reverted. Ed is one of those editors that discriminates against IP address, no doubt about it. Maybe I'll take your advice, but I am sure Ed will continue to abuse others in the future. Please explain the rational behind this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Freeman&diff=265031526&oldid=265031190 I've been asking for an explanation for some time now. He did that to me on at least three separate occasions. Why? And where is the policy behind this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Blashford-Snell&diff=265801568&oldid=265727330 71.178.197.11 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I'm done with this editor, who appears to want to play the martyr rather than get a problem resolved, and about whom the evidence strongly indicates is not the newbie they are playing at being. Pending further data, I'm considering that this is probably a troll, possibly a sock, and I've archived their discussion off of my talk page. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help me. I am sorry. I am just really frustrated. I got reverted again. It doesn't make sense. What do i have to do to be allowed to edit an article?

(undent) I am suggesting you do take on a username, for the reasons I have already mentioned. And second, I suggest you start working through the dispute resolution process, if for no other reason than to show that you have made a reasonable effort to resolve your issues with this editor before things escalate to the next level. Trusilver 06:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am done. I got pushed out. Fine. It's not worth it. Thanks for kinda trying to help.71.178.197.11 (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, good luck. Trusilver 08:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry of Reversion

Inquiring upon why http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_horse_accidents&oldid=266063344 was considered vandalism. Thanks. JordanElla (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. See your IP talk page. The article has been restored. Trusilver 06:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your revisiting of the issue. Keep up the good work curbing vandalism! :] 74.14.57.217 (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks :) Trusilver 06:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry of Reversion

The page I edited "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batata_vada&redirect=no" was considered vandalism by the ClueBot. Batata Vada redirects to Bonda: However a Batata Vada is not a Bonda. Bonda is a south Indian dish while Batata Vada is western Indian (from the state of Maharashtra). 96 million proud Maharashtrians can vouch for this (a google search for this will justify my argument). I deleted the redirect since I was entering new text (which I later did but that too was considered vandalism). Please reconsider and let me contribute. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshi detroit (talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you more quickly with this. I actually noticed that edit when you made it earlier today and I had wondered about it myself. Unfortunately, Cluebot isn't infallible and does come up with false positives every now and then. I will make the change to the article to the version that you originally edited for you. You might consider creating an account to avoid this from happening again. Trusilver 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with the false positive. I do have an account (Joshi_detroit) using which I had edited the document. I appreciate your help to Wikipedia to curb vandalism. User:Joshi_detroit —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC).

No problem at all. If you have any other problems with cluebot, please log in to that account. The bot is much less sensitive about the edits made by logged in users. Trusilver 06:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Can you say WP:DTR? I knew you could...

First of all, the mentioned edit did not look like vandalism to me, and the revert was to your edit. That is convincing enough to look like an edit war. Leujohn ^(talk) 04:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, please do not use insults in your edit summaries. Thank you. Leujohn ^(talk) 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It does if you are a moron, of course I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there. Incidentally, next time you warn someone about edit warring, why not do something tremendously useful like actually research whether or not there is any actual history of that person editing that page... or even do something as unheard of as link the page you are talking about instead of making meaningless templates? Don't get all defensive because you did something really stupid and then got called on it. The correct response is to say "oops, yeah I probably should have researched that a little bit. Sorry." and then move on. Trusilver 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

I liked your list. The fourth person on it, especially, seems like a good guy. I should hang around him more often. Giggy (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh that guy?? Nah, he's a dick. :) Trusilver 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. But I figure if I pass his GAs he might nominate me for adminship, because he seems to be in with the cabal. But yeah. What a jerk. Giggy (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Adoption?

Hi Trusilver,

I wish to know and learn how to do more things, fight vandalism and contribute more. I understand your schedule must be weird being a pilot and all, but I was wondering if you'd like to adopt me. Creez34 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm a little busy right now but I will get back to you later on today. Trusilver 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks! Creez34 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Sennen goroshi again

Hello, Trusilver, could you come and leave your input on this issue? I really tried to assume good faith on this user, but I could not bear his another personal attacks and "harassment" against not only me but other editors. I would be graful if you voice your own thought. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. That name is very familiar but I can't place it. I'm going to have to do some research on where and why I've encountered him/her/it in the past. I will get to it as quickly as I can. Trusilver 03:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Josiah Leming

Did you bother to try the official site in the version to which you continue to revert? It's dead, and I see nothing to suggest that it was ever the official site. Exceptionally bad form here, particularly in issuing a second-level warning for an edit that was by any measure made in good faith. 69.212.18.116 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, unless there are documented sources that verify the authenticity of the myspace page being, in fact, the artists actual work and personal page, then a myspace page is inappropriate as an external link. Looking at it, it does look legitimate... but I can name three or four myspace pages for musicians I have seen in the past that looked equally legitimate and turned out to be fake. Can you find me any third party source on the matter? Trusilver 04:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been searching for about five minutes now and I can't find any information that goes in either direction to prove or disprove the validity of the myspace page. I'm going to say that for the time being, go ahead and reinsert the link seeing that the other one is dead. If anyone else reverts it, tell them to see this discussion. Trusilver 04:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

With this edit-conflicted my extended analysis of why I was inclined to think you fell a bit short of AGF here. Your diligence in pursuing the matter, though, as your talk page header, make clear that even as you may have erred here (if not on the substance of the propriety of the insertion of the link, then at least on the {{Uw-vandalism2}}), you are not a reflexive RC patroller who is unwilling to spend time engaged on a content issue that may attend a revert, and so I offer only my thanks for your cordiality, and, I suppose, an apology if my initial "bother" formulation was unnecessarily cross; as a longtime advocate of anonymous editing and a critic of some parts of meatball:VestedContributor, I was a bit irked to find reverted an edit that would not have been reverted were I signed in, and I undertook to be a bit forceful. Cheers, 69.212.18.116 (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry about that and have a good evening :) Trusilver 05:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)