User talk:AlecTrevelyan402

Re:vandalism
Done. There are some templates here if you ever need 'em. Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 19:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear about the vandalism. (I was going to suggest some vandal warning boilerplate, but Unpop's link is better. ;D) If you want some userboxes, tho, I've got more than my fair share. =] Feel free to copy. If there's something particular you want, I can try & fix 1 up for you. And welcome.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Black rock musicians
There is a CfD discussion about Category:Black rock musicians that you might be interested in. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Grimaldi man as forgery?
Hi! I see you first removed, then reinstated Grimaldi man in the "Archaeological forgeries" category. I am glad you brought attention to this. The problem is that while the Grimaldi find has been labelled a forgery (Masset, C. (1989): Grimaldi : une imposture honnête et toujours jeune, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, vol. 86, n° 8, pp. 228-243.), however, the find is an "imposture" only by stretching the definition a fair bit. As least as I understand the word "forgery" (I'm not a native English speaker, so I may be off here) it implies an element of deceit. The anthropologists that did the reconstruction was entirely open about what they did, and no foreign material was added to make up for something that wasn't there. The reconstruction is obviously speculative, one may even say dubious, but a forgery? The above article belong to the very "politically correct" revisionist literature. There has clearly been a lot of shady racist interpretation of the find, but should the find itself be labelled a forgery?

I have tried to cover the controversy (to the extent that I have citeable literature), but I am not sure if the complexity of the case is made understandable. You have obviously given some mind to this, I would appreciate your input. --Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey man, I posted the links but it got messy, I dont know what happened. As you can see from all that I said, and from other users on the talk page(this and previous archives) - it really does look that the Bulgars were Iranic, from all the evidence. I really hope that on the discussion you read everything, without leaving anything out, because there were a lot of important points. As you have probably seen, if you looked at past edits, edit comments and the talk pages, many people have gotten really irritated with this whole thing - it has become a real problem. It seems lots of people either are scared to do something about it (bans) or dont have the effort, as it takes lots of effort to argue against the Turkic theory supporters who dont give the other theory a chance, which is very unfair. Regards 41.132.178.10 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ItHysteria
If it's an Italian IP editing 30 Seconds to Mars, it's ItHysteria. I've blocked the IP for a week.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Land of Sunshine
I've edited the article Land of Sunshine in a manner that incorporates both your preferred edit and that of User:Asd240, in order to try to try to keep the page stable. I can see no real reason to revert back from this, as no information is lost, just formatting. GRAPPLE  X  00:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough already
Please stop with the edit war on Mike Patton-related articles. Discuss it on the appropriate Talk pages or bring it to WP:RFC. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention it, as I was about to ask for input on this discussion to try to reach a consensus on the matter. GRAPPLE   X  14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. I've blocked every account of your opponent that I could identify as well. If you had been reverting unsourced genres with sourced ones, I might have turned a blind eye to your role, but you have just been replacing his unsourced genres with your unsourced genres. Any admin can unblock this account when the editor agrees to only change genres in infoboxes when he can support those genres with sources.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash;Kww(talk) 02:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Yongchang County, Zhelaizhai & Liqian
I have made some changes to the Yongchang County, Zhelaizhai & Liqian pages, the ones about the Roman soldiers in western China. Let me know what you think of the edits so far, and please make some edits if you are interested. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)