User talk:Sailsbystars/Archive 1

Previous Accounts?
Please disclose your previous accounts, thanks mark nutley (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * None. Zero.  I don't know why I ever came here in the first place if this is what happens to any editor that contributes in good faith to a potentially contentious area. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange that a new account knows as much as yourself then? How do you know so much of how wiki works? mark nutley (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ?? Because I read the manual? Seriously.  Like I said at your rather premature sock investigation, I've been watching from afar for some time.  I did not feel I was ready to contribute under an account until I understood how the system works.  Sailsbystars (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my article
Itsbrandond (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I am deeply sorry for any confusion (and frustration) this has caused for you guys, and if you can, maybe remove the warnings from the T3ch H3lp article, and give me some time to work on it. I understand that I run T3ch H3lp, and I was trying to figure out how to make it possible for other people to edit the article, and add things -- because I was just trying t0 build a shell that others could build upon. If you could point me in the right direction that would be fantastic. You guys are doing an outstanding service for the world, and I guess my excitement got the best of me. I still want a T3ch H3lp entry, but I am not sure how to go about it. Thank you.
 * I just wanted to first apologize for my amateurish article on T3ch H3lp. It was very confusing to create because I never knew when I was in my own space, or on the public site. I thought that the first time, you deleted the article I was creating in my subpage and I was pretty upset because I saw that I could work on it in private. I then realized I had edited my article on the public site, and I then started an article on my subpage. When I went to save it, my browser crashed (I got the Google Chrome sad face), but luckily I had saved a backup to my computer of the article. Long story short, I restored the article on the public space, which again, I thought was my private area and went out to lunch. When I went to go see my article (in my bookmarks) (after lunch) -- I again went to the public area (thinking it was my space) and then saw it got deleted again. I was really frustrated, but then again, I realized I had put it in the wrong place and saw that a note had been left. I then realized I had a SLEW of warnings on a talk page, and I got flustered. -- I just wanted to let you know the article was not finished, and last night I was trying to contact someone to proof/read it and maybe help me along the way, but I couldn't figure out how to find any of the administrators.

PS: Gimmie a minute to figure out this "talk page stuff", I might have gotten my signature wrong!


 * You need to review information about editing with conflicts of interest. That being said, you can create the article in a subpage of your userspace. I would suggest creating it here: User:Sailsbystars/T3ch H3lp. However, if you start this article, you need to be sure that it is written with a neutral point of view, is well-sourced, and is notable. Also, to add your signature to a talk post, simply type after your post. Feel free to ask on my talk page if you have more questions, or restore the   template. Best of luck! — GorillaWarfare talk 17:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am moving this to the talk page of the editor who posted it, but I'll leave a copy here too. Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 17:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Itsbrandond (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you so much! I really appreciate this. I will be working on this as much as I can, and feel free to contact me (is it ok to put my email here? I added it as an invisible comment) at anytime of there is a problem (it if I screwed up badly.... again) :P -- Again, sorry for the disruption in the Wikipedia Chi and all the best to you fine folks.

You are hereby notified
of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GoRight#Septic_trash. this]. --195.43.157.85 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat amused that I've now been accused of being both Ratel and GoRight, who had somewhat opposing views in the climate change arena. I think it's a compliment that I have learned some of the ways of wikipedia and in particular NPOV enough to be accused of being not only a sock, but a schizophrenic one at that. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Sailsbystars, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Sailsbystars/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for undoing my accidental edit at The talk page. Editing on a touch screen mobile may cause havoc. ;-) Nsaa (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * no worries, happens to the best of us. The mouse on my laptop is a little click happy and I've only narrowly avoided some catastrophic inadvertent edits myself thanks to a slow internet connection.  Sailsbystars (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward Drobyshevski
Dear Sailbystars, thank you for you for your little note on my page. I am not sure how exactly to read it though as I thought you wanted the article deleted and still had your vote as delete even despite the improved sourcing. I too think it is nice to have articles on some of the slightly odd scientists as they are often the ones mentioned in the media and ones we often need to look up to find out about them.

Sadly I am unable to help you with any list of alternate Russian transliterations. I think one might just have to rely on commonsense and playing with obvious alternatives. Google translate is really nice and there you can choose different languages. Some questions that I have related to our EM Drobyshevski - who is co-author M Drobyshevski (brother - son) and also how many other people have mini-planets named after them? Anyway best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Russian to German Дробышевский => Drobyschewsky
 * Russian to English Дробышевский => Drobyshevsky

I appreciate the cleanup
I looked at the Brett Salisbury Athlete/model etc page. Under categories every list that you click his name shows up except American male models. He is listed again under category but doesn't show up on the list after you click that category. Can you help with that? Thank you 09:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Venture Capitalist Athlete
 * He shows up now. Sometimes it takes wiki a little while for such tagging to propogate, and I think that was a more recent tag.  Cheers,  Sailsbystars (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

model brett
hey sailsbystars, i reverted the addition of the model info from the brett salisbury article. hope you don't mind, just wanted to have a chat about it first. the ref provided seems questionable, it returns zero results in WOT, highly unusual for what the anon editor claimed was "the largest newspaper in nevada" (another WOT example, my local newspaper). also the viewnews.com articles lack of an author name or even a date raises some flags for me. it appears it may have been written by someone who may be associated with brett, or the article may have been sponsored (i.e. paid advertisement). my main question is, if brett was such a successful model in europe, why is the best source to support that information a small community newspaper in nevada? lastly, while the college football info doesn't imply notability beyond local coverage, it does mave multiple sources from many different places; something this info lacks. also i think we might be sending out the wrong message to the anon by allowing this information, that the correct way to get your info onto wikipedia is to ignore other users and continously add the info with new sock accounts until someone lets it slide. any way, if you have some reasons as to why you think the info should be included i'd be happy to hear them. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (butting in) This is a tough one. Given the recent edit is very likely a sock of the other editors, I'm inclined to leave the material out as well, for the reason WookieInHeat states--it sends the message that if you stick with it, change your identity, and so forth, you can get whatever you want into an article. I've also looked for reliable info on model Brett, but can't find anything that isn't written by Brett (on his website) or spoofed from an old Wikipedia entry. The Las Vegas paper seems vaguely legit, in that the newspaper is real, but I strongly suspect, but can't prove, that the material was provided by Brett to the paper as some kind of profile/advertisement. Without the history of the relentless puffing of this article, I'd let it stand, but I think given the history, until something else comes along, it should be kept out. -- Esprqii (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's likely our favorite puff-pushing ip/user. Also that it's not the most reliable of sources. On the other hand, maybe the brett fan(s) have finally understood the difference between a spam website and a reliable source. (emphasis on maybe). However, given that the edit only indicated that he was a model(not a more pufferous description), i felt it was okay. I agree that it's borderline and don't have strong feelings either way. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC) (from mobile)
 * Opening a discussion on the talk page seems like a good next step. The course of that might give us more information about the intentions of the new editor (including more definitive sock identification). --Esprqii (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

blogs not source. But this is a link to a blog that summarizes two books I have read throughtoutly. It seems to me that the page summarizes the books well. What is bad iwth that? Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Ragsdale
Thank you Sailsbystars for undeleting my RfC on Jeff Ragsdale. I just posted some substantive material to the Jeff_Ragsdale talk page that points out that there is evidence of a relationship between Richard Peterson and Jeff Ragsdale, but the "other" ip address that maintains the puffery on that page just deleted what I addedagain, so just letting you know to look out for it in the history, they marked me "vandalism". I'm not sure how this sort of thing works, should I post a whole bunch more examples of where the page exaggerates things? For instance, his recent short film "Ironic Odyssey" did not exactly win any of the listed awards at the film festival, it's an honorable mention (among dozens of films) according to the citation. Also, if you look at Jeff Ragsdale on youtube, only 80 people have bothered to look at this film though it is free to watch. Another example, he is listed as being on a game show and also as being on some "science channel", but the game show was on the science channel, it's one thing, not two. He's basically done 3 things (1) tried hard to become an actor, creating reels and shorts, and walk ons, etc. (2) protested a tavern after a girl was murdered by the bouncer (3) stood in a NYC park with a sign around his neck apologizing to his girlfriend, and getting some press notice for doing it. All interesting as a friend, just not particularly notable. 71.190.77.101 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Note
""Climategate" is an inherently NPOV term, as the appellation of the "-gate"" Context indicates that you might have meant "POV" or "non-NPOV" in your statement. Just thought I'd let you know... BigK HeX (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks! That's what I meant, but I failed to count the appropriate number of negatives. Fixed it now.  Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email)

userfy deleted page?
No, sorry. Of the 37 edits, 2 are clean (1 minor edit by an admin, 1 tag for deletion), 4 come from an IP which may or may not have Grundle links has not been blocked by checkuser, and all the rest are from Grundle sockpuppets as confirmed by checkuser: see the latest entry at Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600. BencherliteTalk 00:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the Dead Horse?
What I just added showed the pictures and campaigns of the model Brett Salisbury? A simple google search of images and those sites shows his ads. He is a proven model is he not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.213.175 (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No he is not a proven model at all. All of those sites you linked to are self-published by salisbury or his "fans." Come back when you've found a reliable source with his modeling career. We've been through this several times on the article and its talk page. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The pictures show it. You even say this, please see your own admission that he is a proven model. : (cur | prev) 10:30, 17 October 2010 Sailsbystars (talk | contribs) (4,904 bytes) (Undid revision 391186087 by WookieInHeat (talk) No reason to remove statement sourced to local, but apparently reliable source) (undo)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.213.175 (talk)
 * Yes, I did think a brief mention might be appropriate, but consensus was to not include it and remains so. there is zero consensus to include your spam links. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Spam Links? I have no idea who you are or what you are talking about. I am a person who enjoys wikipedia. I read the article of Brett Salisbury. I simply added links that showed his pictures and campaigns. And as I read further it was not the consensus. It was some person named wookieinheat that continued to make changes. I am not sure how pictures with other models doesn't qualify or ads that are clearly the model. How did you all prove he is a football player? Where is the line drawn? Did he really play quarterback? I think you need to look at the evidence. There is no dead horse. You sound a little bitter, but I will no longer be adding anything to contribute to wikipedia with this kind of attitude. It's a little overbearing to have you make such harsh judgements. In fact looking now you even denied Salisbury ever played football, then were shown by others he was and you finally gave it the green light. Spam Links? That is funny. I have no care in the world as I am a student at UCLA. I am simply trying to help make this a better place and spam linking is not one of them, Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.213.175 (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I still have it on my watchlist. Thanks to you, it looks like it's under control for the moment, at least until another kindly elderly couple or idealistic college student gets a hold of it in a month or so. --Esprqii (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Port open?
Hi Sailsbystars. Recently I've been trying to close some complaints at WikiProject on open proxies/Unchecked. You appear to have some knowledge in this area. I was taking a look at this one, 202.108.50.75:. The admin who imposed the most recent proxy block says it was by analogy to other similar reports. I am faced with a half-dozen similar IPs in the 202.108.50.* range here and would consider blocking all of them, but am reluctant without knowing what port they are open on. Proxies should be hard-blocked and people are expected to have good evidence. Earlier proxy blocks in this range don't include the port number. Usually I rely on Google to give me the port number to check. Do you have any suggestions? Perhaps you have a superior testing method. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I tried activating one of the IPs on port 80 and got it to do something, but it was not obvious what it was giving me back (there was a message in Chinese). I decided to go ahead with 2-year proxy blocks for all the IPs from the range that were not yet blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you recommend a service like nmap for checking open ports? And do you know what tests WP:Open proxy detection is using to get its results? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I had been going through a bunch of past proxy blocks where the port was not indicated. I see that admins do use blocking 'by analogy' and with indirect evidence. The 'Guide to checking open proxies' makes it sound as though nmap is unwise, or only marginally legal. I wish there was a reliable web service somewhere that would do nmap-like checking. EdJohnston (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

KOBATA
Hey,

No one is saying Wikipedia is a dictionary. But sometimes Wikipedia explains words, places or things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.162.86 (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Proxy checks
. That means, to me, that I've vouched for you not to be right, but not to be wrong. I hope you appreciate the importance and/of the difference. Often sysadmins will want to understand the significance of someone editing from a Hungarian airline :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Buried Mysteries of Littletown
Hello Sailsbystars. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Buried Mysteries of Littletown to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question - A7 doesn't apply to books. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So noted and understood. I wasn't sure if A7 could also include books, hence why I tagged it with that.  Since it does not, I have no objection to my speedy being changed to a prod.  Sailsbystars (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a good guide to A7 at WP:A7M, and more general speedy tips at WP:10CSD. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GLOO vandalism
Your GLOO-based reverting is vandalism. You obviously have not read the article. You have not read the discussion. You have not read the edit summaries. You are exacerbating an edit war. The content in question is not being removed against consensus: it is being ADDED without consensus. If you spent any time looking at the article history, you would know this. If you're going to revert edits, take the time to understand what is going in the article, instead of running a script. Nobody who makes dozens of reverts an hour is in a position to be constructive. If you continue to edit in ways that throw fuel on fires because you think a running a script is a substitute for consensus-building, you will damage the community. Please undo your own reverts--or take the time to actually read the article. Mindbunny (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I missed that this was an edit war/content dispute. That doesn't change the fact that you need to use edit summaries every time you make such a substantial change to the article.  The edit summary doesn't have to be much, ("See discussion on talk" would suffice)but without one recent change patrollers will usually treat section blanking of well-sourced material as vandalism.  Sailsbystars (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Recent change scripts are a reason to investigate an edit. They are not, in themselves, reasons to revert someone's edit. They are not a reason to consider anyone's edit vandalism. You are always responsible for making sure that your edits are intelligent. Don't blame me or the script. Mindbunny (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From the wikipedia policy on content removal:
 * When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Unexplained content removal when the reason for the removal is not obvious is open to being promptly reverted.
 * Was it a content dispute where in an ideal world RC patrollers would not revert? Yes.  However, we inevitably make occasional mistakes because we don't have infinite time to consider each and every edit.  Please learn to assume good faith and use edit summaries.  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The removal was explained in previous edits, and on the Talk page. Before you revert someone's edit, check the Talk page. The reasons for removing the content are: 1) it is a list, and as such mostly trivia, 2) it is a list without any analysis or discussion, and as such doesn't contribute to the narrative, 3) the subject of the list is only indirectly related to the article, 4) the artilce is already too long, and would be benefit more from trimming than adding. All these reasons had lready been given at the time you reverted and templated me. As for assuming good faith, you initiated the accusations of vandalism. Mindbunny (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent Change patrolling
I am trying to get a discussion going. Mindbunny (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification! Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Neko Jump
Hello Sailsbystars. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Neko Jump, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''If they've won disney awards, that's a good claim to notability. Take to AfD if required.''' Thank you. Ged UK  21:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, missed that while trying to read through the mess that was the article. Rather than take to AfD, I looked for some references and cleaned up the article instead.  Sailsbystars (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Elvis Abbruscato - oops...
You're right, that was my mistake. Thanks for catching it... take care... Dinky town  talk  04:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, these things happen on occasion. Besides, it was slightly more complicated because the IP tossed out some good stuff with the blatant hoax stuff.  It should be all better now.  Cheers! Sailsbystars (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

your recent change
I am a writer, and editor of Scientific America. I have come accross a book and found this to be a very reliable source. http://diet.lovetoknow.com/transform-diet 1. If you click the link it tells the pros and cons of the diet. Why are you deleting it? 2. Love to Know is a very reputable website. The link is absolutely reliable and the site has been around longer tha wikipedia. 3. What is your reasoning for removing that link? The other two links I added also prove the founders credibility, but I understand maybe the removal of those. However, there is no case for removing the link as it clearly is unbiased and explains in detail this book that we at Scientific America are reporting on. I would like an explination please. We are very good friends with your co founder Jimmy Wales. We understand the process of reliable sources and provide them as such. We have contributed greatly to the success of wikipedia and we would ask that you closely examine the source given to you above. Thank you John Rennie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rennie_(editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.33.117 (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. You aren't who you say you are and the sources aren't what you say they are either.  Lovetoknow is a site based on used generated content, therefore not a reliable source.  Age had nothing to do with anything.  The "NYT" website is also fake (although much better done than the previous ones).  Go find another corner of the internet to bother.   Sailsbystars (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Mr. Rennie is slipping in his editorial abilities. Numerous typos in his post, including the title of his own publication. Shocking. Maybe too much Mexican karaoke. I'm canceling my subscription. --Esprqii (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I confess, I chuckled a bit at your comment. I got so caught up in investigating the technical aspects of the fraudsters I overlooked the slew of grammar errors by a supposed editor of a prominent magazine.  On a more serious note, the Salisbury promoters are getting much better at this game.  The fake NY Times site creators put in some serious effort to make the site seems legitimate, and I was impressed in a morbid sort of way.  I think Salisbury's promoters have actually been learning from our efforts to keep their spam out.  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't get a chance to check the links before you terminated them, but that is pretty impressive. Too bad the real NYT best-seller list doesn't include TTD. --Esprqii (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I simply added what the love to know website was based on as I thought were factual. It showed the pros and cons. I added the authors website as it also mentioned he is the CEO and Founder but maybe it's all a mistake? I wonder if I order the products from that website (www.TranformDiet.com) that I would actually get protein powder? Huh? I will do that. Let's see if this stuff is for real. The best seller list is an "e book list." I'm not sure what your referring to. I will lose your number. I'm not real either. LOL ....This must be a ghost. Love to know is a fake site? I had no idea. I also had no idea that www.TranformDiet.com was fake too? As for the e-book, I simply added a link for credibility. It's not up to me to decide whats real or what isn't, it's your job. Just the attitude back? Wow! Power trip. POOF...he was gone... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.33.117 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Scibaby
I have nominated this article for speedy deletion, see User talk:Crotalus horridus and the article. Startmoney 5 (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was certainly begging to be deleted, but I couldn't quite find a speedy category that would fit and I'm pretty conservative with my speedies.  Sailsbystars (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

GW
Please don't reply to obvious Scibaby socks. It doesn't get us anywhere. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for help
I'd be very grateful if you could take a few minutes to elaborate on this. It concerns me that a casual observer could come away with the impression you have. --Thepm (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Actually never mind. What's important is that you have that impression. I swore to stay away from the climate change articles and your 'cajones' post encouraged me to try to clean up this one. I consider myself taught! --Thepm (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sailsbystars, I have just come here for exactly the same reason as Thepm, i.e. to ask you to please explain this. I found it particularly disturbing, given that Thepm is not an experienced editor, and, moreover, has not uttered a single word, as far as I can see, that could have led you to form this view. Additionally, you had actually supported his endeavour here. It seems to me that after conceding you couldn't be bothered to actually read any of the discussion -- which was only long as a result of V's disruption -- you've then happily listened to all of V's inappropriate, and largely conspiratorial attacks against Thepm and others, and chosen to just take his word for it. Instead, you should have been counselling V to not make these attacks. Accordingly, per WP:BITE etc., you owe Thepm an apology and it would be nice if you also struck your remark from the talk page. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize sincerely, thepm. I have struck my comment.  I apparently confused you with another new user haunting the CC pages, and for that I apologize.  I will add a new comment to the talk page.  Please continue your work in improving the pages.  It seems we have the opposite problem that I thought we did.  Sailsbystars (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sailsbystars, if you were prompted by my suggestion, and I don't wish to presume that you were, then I sincerely thank you for this, and for going well beyond what I was expecting or hoping for. I now feel some regret for my own accusatory tone if this was simply mistaken identity. Best wishes. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very kind of you to apologise, but it's perfectly understandable. Occasional editors such as yourself will see the torrent of abuse and criticism that I receive from Viriditas and naturally assume that I am on the other side from him. They will then frame their treatment of me (and their opinion of any edits I suggest) in terms of that assumption. It's a little lazy I guess, but we all use heuristics in place of considered judgements in these sorts of exchanges. We'd go nuts otherwise. There's too much to consider.


 * Of course that pretty much eliminates me from editing there. I'm not interested in arguing a particular line and was just hopeful that as a neutral partly I could help negotiate a better article. That's not possible because I'm no longer neutral. It's frustrating that I'm no longer neutral because it's not through any action of mine, it's through the labels applied by Viriditas. Even in his response to you, when you attempt to explain that I have been non-partisan, his response includes the comment "Thepm arrived and deleted the previous stable lead." What do you suggest I do about this? I've started a collection.


 * I am slightly baffled as to why it has turned out like this, but I suspect it's because the first time he encountered me I was supporting a comment by Alex Haley. Viriditas applied his own heuristic, assumed I was on the other team. Once you've taken that view there's no turning back. Perhaps it might have been different if his first encounter with me involved me supporting a comment from Dave Souza or you.


 * Once again, thank you for your kind and generous apology. There's no ill-will on my part. I really do understand why you took the view you did. best --Thepm (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kindly reply, and again I'm sorry for my error. I had confused you with user:Phase Theory (PT) who has been commenting over at Talk:Global warming controversy.  I'm not sure what the best way forward is at this point as Arthur Rubin, Alex Harvey, and Viriditas seem to have sidetracked your stylistic suggestions into content arguments.  These articles unfortunately have a storied history of wiki-nastiness that seems to be returning.  There are various dispute resolution processes available, but previous efforts to apply them in the Climate Change pages have created more problems than they have solved, but then again none has been tried since the arbitration case topic-banned the worst of the agitators.
 * But don't give up hope. Cleaning up a heavily edit warred article can be done. I think an WP:RfC requesting input from outside editors is probably the least harmful solution, although it would need a concise summary to save people from having to read through the walls of text on the talk page.  Your page you link to above looks like something that could be filed at arbitration enforcement, where there are discretionary sanctions authorized for battleground issues in the CC area, but my personal opinion is that doing so will create more drama than it solves.  I don't have an easy solution I can offer, but I hope the info I've provided here gives you some idea of the options available to you. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second most of this. An RfC is most likely the way forward, and while V clearly deserves arbitration enforcement, it's not something I would recommend either. But as far as putting Arthur Rubin and myself ahead of Viriditas in 'sidetracking [Thepm's] stylistic suggestions', nothing could be further from the truth. A single editor did that: Viriditas. Arthur Rubin was not involved in any way whatsoever, and I was completely supportive of what Thepm was trying to do (as were plenty of others who simply gave up after V took over both the article and the talk page). What troubles me is not that V doesn't end up topic banned for this, but that other editors actually stand around and support him after the fact for this appalling behaviour. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Brett Salisbury
How are you? I have been notified atleast 100 times but have never cared about having content on wikipedia. However, with so many emails to me from people all over the world (brett@transformdiet.com) I thought I should take the time to write. I thought you might be a relative or something? Ha Ha. By the way, this is Brett Salisbury. I have seen the edits and complications of everything on here. What a crazy ride. Anyway I can personally help? I am truly Brett Salisbury, and this is my page. Verifiable? I can do that. Why don't you call me. I truly don't want spam or any kind of garbage out there that is not true. By the same tolken I would love to have you write a page that is complete and honest. I think only what you see is half the story of my life. The last edits I looked at are real. I am a health and wellness writer. I have written two books. Yes, I was a top model in the world. Let's talk about it. I want to set the record straight myself. I would love to help anyway I can. My brother and I have been through so much Sean Salisbury. We are coming together as a family and really trying to do interviews and allow others to get closer to us. I would love to speak with you either by Skype or email or phone. My skype is, email is Brett@TransformDiet.com or you can call me. I don't like hype or conflict. I also truly want to set the record straight about myself. My second book that has been out now for 2 months is actually doing quite well, however, everyday is the pursuit of happiness. Can we discuss my page. What is truth. I think the last edit as I looked at is close. We don't want spam or to have anything that promotes. Just facts. I am the source and can help do that now. Whatever you need. I appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. -Brett Salisbury, Las Vegas NV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettsals (talk • contribs) 16:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Mr. Salisbury, and thank you for taking the time to write (and sorry for the slow response, I've been away from wikipedia for about a week). I realize that you have a life outside of your college football career, but allow me to explain why more experienced wikipedia editors have been preventing that material from being added to the article.  Wikipedia has a policy that all information included in our articles should be verifiable from reliable sources.  In the case of articles on living people we have very, very strict rules on how well-sourced that information needs to be.  The general rule is that information must be from a secondary source that is independent of the subject.  In general this means news coverage.  Your book doesn't seem to have received much, if any attention.  If it were in an article by itself it would be deleted shortly because it falls short of the inclusion guideline for books. I am open to the possibility of a brief mention of the book if a reliable source can be found mentioning it, but only briefly, since as I said the book is really notable at this point in time.  We can't just take your word for something, so there's not really anything you could do here on wiki to lead to more coverage of your current life.  In the real world, once your book has received non-trivial coverage, then we can write about it more on-wiki.  I hope this answers some of your questions.  Sailsbystars (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the update. I appreciate you getting back to me. I know there are a couple of articles written about both books from major media outlets that I will dig up and place here if that's ok so you can look at them as I do not want or wish to change anything without letting you check out the link or article. In fact I would rather you wrote it as I would be silly coming from me.

I have two published books that have the ISBN numbers that are listed barnes and noble amazon and baker taylor. I will include the links amazon and barnes and noble. I will give you the sources and allow you to decide how it needs to be written. My new website is pretty amazing and done with as I wanted to remove myself as much as possible from Transform. I would like to be behind the scenes. Here are the sources I have and I truly appreciate your help. I did look at the entire wikipedia blogs (I'm not sure if that's what they are called) and a lot of things trying for people to push for me were silly. Is there a way to clean all of it up? I would like to stay as a notable person on wikipedia without the garbage or some outsider trying to make me out to be something I'm not. Thank you again and here are those links to amazon so you can see both books that maybe you can write something in a neutral and balanced point of view. Here they are: 1st the kindle edition of my second book:

2. Transform The Revision 2011: and here is barnes and noble:

3. The Transform Diet 2008:

4. Here is an article from the Las Vegas News about the book and my modeling career and that I'm a certified sports nutritionts: and Here with Joyce Graff with powerfulpatient.org:

5. Here is a third party about my modeling career with pictures from Models Broadcast Inc in New York:

6. I actually was part of the Brigham Young University football team as well. I signed a full scholarship and played with the team: and here:

I appreciate all your help. Thank you Brett Salisbury brett@transformdiet.com

p.s. My official website which I would love for you to check out is www.TransformDiet.com: Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettsals (talk • contribs) 05:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr. Salisbury, thank you for the sources. Unfortunately most are not acceptable.  Websites selling a product are not a reliable source or even suitable as article links (see policy on external links, particularly #5).  For the same reason, we can't link to your book website directly (it's largely commercial in nature).  The top25malemodelserver is unacceptable because it's a spam or search engine optimization website of dubious ownership.  However, I think that the playing for BYU can be mentioned and I think that a brief mention of your book in your article sourced to the Spring Valley News article would be acceptable.  I will make these changes to the article shortly.  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, nevermind about the BYU bit, looks like it's already sourced in the article just fine. I did add it to the list in the lede, though....  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.19.170 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing others user pages, particularly in a manner that removes useful content is considered disruptive editing  Sailsbystars (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism if its true. Mark Allinson IS a straight up baller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.232.20 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for having a little sign up that says: Trout me. Couldn't resist. :D  Rcsprinter  (talk)  20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aww thanks! :) I can feel the wikilove.  For some reason trouting always reminds me of the Fish slapping dance.  Sailsbystars (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:OP
I know that there are only one or two of us actually clerking WP:OP for the meantime, and I was wondering if you would mind me changing the style of WP:OP to use these templates at the top of each request, making it easier to see the status. If you don't respond in a day or two, I will be bold. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi DQ, the templates look good and useful to use. My only thought concerning the templates is how they will interact with the archiving bot on the page?  The bot currently archives cases based on whether they are notaproxy, open proxy, or inconclusive, then sorts them into into an appropriate archive.  Have you ever looked at the archives?  I don't think your proposed system system would be compatible with the existing archive bot without some modification.  Sailsbystars (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I looked into that quickly, and I am pretty sure it will still work, because there is a parameter in the archive template that is the "archive now" command, so I just change it to the template when it's set to close. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See what you mean now...I will have to look into the unchecked page, still using the templates though. -- DQ  (t)   (e)
 * I'm just blind lol. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  03:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

BVC
You recently removed my entry in the BVC disambiguation page, naming it a hoax. Now I did place it there in the hopes of getting clarifications to my own misgivings. So I will certainly not be attacking you in any way. But do you have any factual information to illustrate the hoax nature of BVC air cargo operations in the Horn of Africa? Asking really out of sheer curiosity. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion/BVC Airlines, where it was extensively researched and discussed. If you've found a new source that is actually reliable, then maybe the article should be recreated. However, at the time of the deletion discussion the evidence overwhelmingly favored that it was a hoax (although I don't think any of us at the discussion were experts on airlines). I did a search for remaining mentions after finding that someone tried to overwrite the deletion discussion this morning.....  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is more than plausible as an explanation. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
If you took my edit on the spi case page a little personal. I came into work this morning going "it's going to be one of those days isn't it". Talked to DQ, he advised me a little more and I reverted my edit. Again sorry. Alexandria  (talk)  15:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, we all have days like that. :) Sailsbystars (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Kepler-22b
I liked your improvements. That's kind of what I was aiming for, but you actually made it. Good work! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I saw your edits and they inspired me to try to actually expand and improve what was written rather than merely revert to the old version.   Sailsbystars (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Global warming controversy, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Michael Mann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

he's baaack
I'm taking a wait-and-see approach at this point. --Esprqii (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that too. And hey, he actually edited an article other than his own! The brief mention of modeling might be okay (it's mentioned in the literary las vegas source), but let's wait and see if the editor pushes too far.... Sailsbystars (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That reference seems pretty bogus to me (based on the typos and poor grammar, I suspect he wrote it himself and they placed it as an "article") but it's hard to prove. --Esprqii (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I never noticed that the article talked about "waste size." Granted, I have a bit of waste size I'd like to get rid of personally, but I don't think that's what the author intended..... that raises substantial doubts as to whether any editorial control was exercised on the article.   Sailsbystars (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And now begins the fun..... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since misery loves company, I decided to get some outside opinions on the source at WP:RSN on whether it's an acceptable source or not. We'll see what the crowds say there say before making any more edits... Sailsbystars (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Kepler-20, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hate to be a pain in the side...
Would you be able to list the single IPs or ranges that need to be hit in regards to WP:OP so I can mass block the list? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, can do, but it'll take a bit. Happy to make your life a bit easier. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. There were two ranges I wasn't sure about, but there were a bunch that are obvious blocks.  Sailsbystars (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

E-mail ping
 Tide  rolls  21:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The short answer is yeah, I'd be happy to teach you what I know (although I can't provide anything immediately as I'm pretty busy over the next two weeks). The guide to checking proxies is a pretty reasonable approximation (at least to me, having now done many of the checks), but it lacks in specific examples because things are constantly changing... I can certainly find some of those.  Most of the techniques can be discussed on-wiki, but there are a handful of tricks I've discovered that should probably be kept off-wiki for reasons of WP:BEANS.  Sailsbystars (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As promised, I will apply my pitiful brain power to the instructions on that page with more attention. More than likely I'll be back here with questions, but I'll make enough of an effort that I won't be back before your RL obligations will allow you the time to answer.  Thanks for responding.  Tide  rolls  23:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made a draft of my own thoughts on proxy checking and put it in user space. Is this easier to read? I'll pull out some example ips later if you want some practice... Sailsbystars (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

read my mind
Thanks, I almost did this too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A) warming w/o precedent ; B) CO2 buildup w/o precedent ; C) both A and B
Hi Sails,

Recently we saw RSs talking about CO2 rise 10x that of PETM; but do we have RSs that the measured temp rise is unprecedented ? Right or wrong I thought CO2 was easier to track in the proxy record than temp itself, and 100-some years is sort of a small window compared to geotime. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All of your statements are true. However, it's also true to say that the temp rise is unprecedented in some contexts.... for instance the main reason for the Hockey stick controversy was that is showed that the current temperature rise was unprecedented in the past 1000ish years.  And another reason for being unprecedented is that the temp rise is of previous geological time scale magnitudes, but over substantially less than geological time.  FYI, I wasn't really thinking too much about the sourcing and content with my edit, just wanted to make it flow better with the same content (before the edit of the probably sock at any rate), but without the poor parallel construction.  So C.) is the answer, but for a lede, it's possibly too much of a nitpick to make the distinction...  Sailsbystars (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How about exceeds? See the article please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, I see where you mean. Exceeds is certainly an appropriate word choice.  The current wording after the flurry of edits while I was asleep looks decent.  Sailsbystars (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting at Peter Gleick
I think it's all explained when you realise that the editor is the director of communications for The Heartland Institute. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I went ahead and did the Gleick revert immediately on its own merits, but afterwards I noticed the activity on The Heartland Institute that clearly pointed to the potential conflict of interest. It was late though, so I didn't have the time to go through and see if there was anything salvageable in the edits there.  I figured I wouldn't be the only person to put 2 and 2 together... and I was right!  Sailsbystars (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Something I'd like to call to your attention
Haven't a clue who I should approach with this as I'm really not involved with the community on Wikipedia (virtually all my edits are minor corrections).
 * Ecofascism

I cannot in good faith believe that this article is anything other than a joke or a Conservapedia writing assignment, and belief me, I have tried. A candidate for nomination for deletion? I don't even know how to do that. Could you please take a look, see if you think there is reason for nomination, and then nominate it? Karin Anker (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick look shows that the article would probably survive a deletion discussion (although one could potentially make a case for it). The article certainly has issues (it seems to be somewhat redundant with environmental extremism).  I'll put it on my list of articles that need work, but I can't make any promises.  I also probably have a few talk page stalkers who might also have some ideas on how to fix it (possibly turn into a disambiguation page?  not sure that can be justified....).  Sailsbystars (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call, Karin. I did a bit on it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks NAEG, it looks like it's vastly improved. I've been tied up in meteor stuff all day......  Sailsbystars (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi there. I noticed you are a volunteer at the open proxies WikiProject and, because we haven't interacted before today, I had a look through your contributions. You seem to be a qualified candidate for adminship and you could clearly use the sysop tools. Would you like me to nominate you? AGK [•] 20:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi AGK, I have considered adminship, but I'm a bit hesitant to put myself through the gauntlet of RfA. I'll have to think it over a bit (say for the next week or so), but I would be honored to be nominated by you if I decided to run.  Sailsbystars (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think qualified candidates should fear RFA, but of course the decision is yours. If you decide you'd like a nomination, please get in touch; and there's no rush to make a decision, so please do take however long you like. (If you do ever go through RFA, I suggest you avoid referring to nominations as "honours" because adminship is a duty, not an honour—though it's a pleasure to know you would think highly of my nomination!) Regards, AGK  [•] 15:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: your edit
Re: your edit to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎: no/primary source and also very awkwardly written. I agree it is "very awkwardly written", (but that's easily solved). However, I'm not sure what you mean by "no/primary source". The source is quoted, so there is not "no source". Yes, a secondary source would be better, but why is quoting a primary source sufficient reason for removal? Just asking. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure I'd be happy to expand on my summary. I wrote "no/primary" because it was lacking the inline citation (i.e. the no) and primary because based on the text in the paragraph it was sourced to a memoir. But you already figured that out I think. :)
 * (Yep! ;-)
 * I considered rewriting, but I felt uncomfortable with the sourcing because it was basically hearsay: Churchill's doctor claimed Churchill said the atomic bomb was a message to Stalin.  That is a rather important statement, supporting the controversial thesis that the bombings were more of a message to Stalin than a means of ending the war. Was this Churchill's main sentiment or something additional to the war-ending necessity?  A primary source wouldn't provide that answer, but a secondary text evaluating the historical context would.  It's a bit of borderline case by my reading of WP:PRIMARY, but it seems like there ought to be better secondary sources for that sort of thing available, like a textbook I used for a history class way back when:  or another book with the same title that seems pretty relevant .   Sailsbystars (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there you go! I have absolutely no problem agreeing with you. Your edit comment did not do your thought process justice. Thanks for the expansion/explanation - most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, the inline citation (someone's 1966 memoir...) was vague at best. See WP:Citing sources). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not at all vague - it's quite specific. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All I noticed in the version I read was author, year, and literature genre. Unless I missed little bibliographic details (like title) that doesn't really satisfy WP:Citing sources.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh, WP:SOFIXIT applies. It took me all of five minutes to find the actual source .  Things that can eaily be fixed (improper cite format) aren't grounds for removal in and of themselves.  Sailsbystars (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't suggesting they were grounds for removal; was only trying to add some friendly assistance to an editor who appeared to be asking why something wasn't up to snuff. But of course, they weren't asking me.....  sorry to intrude. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously very new to this and still trying to figure it out. I definitely don't want to make the logo available for people to print on whatever they want. How do I go about deleting it?User:drinkingthesea — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASCStaunton (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)