User talk:Terrillja/Archives/01/2010

Mountain Hardwear logo
I noticed you replaced with a slightly higher-resolution image. Just curious, but where did you find that image? A good image of the logo from the official website is surprisingly hard to find. Can you update the "Source" field of the Fair Use Rationale to point to the correct location? Thanks,

AlphaPyro (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC) == Degrassilover45 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)What do you mean attack??Degrassilover45 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC) ==

What did I do?/Let's talk some more!!

Sea Shepherd
Hi Terrillja - not sure what the main gist of your changes to the Sea Shepherd article will be - but can I ask you NOT to remove significant amounts of material. Yes, the article is very long at the moment. The correct way to deal with this would be to split off material, not remove it. Please bear this in mind. Thank you. Ingolfson (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, missed the fact you seem to be doing just that. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's ok, I will be splitting it up some more soon, adding an article on Neptune's Navy as well so that can be covered in more depth. Just hoping AnomieBot rescues the refs soon. -- Terrillja talk  00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Speak of knee-jerk. Relax. I gave it plenty of time. Other editors are in on the conversation. Both of us have tried bold eidts and both were reverted. Chill out.Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yours was reverted because it made 3 giant blocks of text that were impossible to read. Mine was reverted because you didn't want to try and discuss how to change what I had done. Everyone has said that the article is too long now. So ops has to be out on a separate article. No one has disputed that. So the only dispute is what to include in the ops section of the article. The logical thing would be to discuss that. Instead you reverted and brought back the too long article. I've tried to figure out how that makes sense but it's beyond me. I'll leave your edit, but I still think your edit makes no sense in terms of the long term problems with the article.-- Terrillja talk  03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my God I agree with you for the most part. Chill. Your edit was no good in the eyes of at least two editors. No worries. We can try something else.
 * Also, nice catch on the images several weeks ago. Next time, make sure to give a heads up to the uploader (me for those) since you missed a handful that also needed to be removed.Cptnono (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag any of the images you uploaded, I went through 4img's contribs and tagged theirs. So I notified them, if had seen that you were uploading them too I would have notified you. I'm tagging everything with the copyvio tag now though if they get uploaded again, the deletion process there appears to be a joke. They were left for a month with zero action by an admin. If they start showing up again I'll request that the flickr user's page is added to the blacklist though.-- Terrillja  talk  04:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I generally support a split of the ops section into a separate article, generally as Terrillja did (though I haven't had time yet to look closely at it). I suggest we weed the main article out pretty good, and then when someone has something that he feels REALLY needs to go into the main article, he/she should carefully re-add what he/she considers absolutely necessary. Ingolfson (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Manny nieto
Hello Terrillja. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Manny nieto, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you.  So Why  13:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Randomisticality
Hello Terrillja. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Randomisticality to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's sad, and I wish there was a speedy for "blatantly made up one day", but proposals to have one never get agreed. WP:CSD is very narrowly drawn, and is only for things like "&45J#@!!7%" and "Yaaaaayyyyy LOL!!!!!". WP:CSD blatant hoax is nearer, but IMO only applies where there is intent to deceive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)I would call it pretty a blatant hoax(g3)/ nonsense(g1), but whatever you feel is appropriate. Think the comment in the article about "sorry for wasting a minute of your life, you can stop reading this now" would qualify it as a hoax, but yes, I wish there was a tag for blatant madeup rubbish. Tennis Ball Mortar was the same issue and I ended up using a custom/IAR db reason for that.-- Terrillja talk  18:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, on reflection I think you're right and G3 with a seasoning of IAR would have done. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Chocolate
Where would I put my edit about chocolate?GoPeter452 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The information in already listed in the article pretty much, M&Ms are mentioned under manufacturers, forms such as bars are mentioned under production.-- Terrillja talk  23:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Delta boat
The Delta boat is a make of boat, not a letter designating it.

Please follow this link. DELTA manufacturers of RHIB used by many armed forces and rescue services

The boat the SSCG use is probably one of the SOLAS class

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for comparison, here are a couple of pics, that one is almost def a Delta Delta site SSCG image pages as for the other dont know...will check up a bit
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: ReachBy
Hello Terrillja. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ReachBy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''The Lifehacker article is probably enough to get through A7. PROD or take to AfD if required.''' Thank you. Ged UK  11:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mac Pro
Hello, Terrillja, I'm Airplaneman. I saw your script-assisted formatting corrections on the article Mac Pro. Thanks! May you please point me to the script you are using? I would like to try it out. Regards, Airplaneman  talk 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it is: reflinks.-- Terrillja talk  21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). Airplaneman  talk 21:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you and what do you do this for?
What is the purpose of having your blood type on their??

Degrassilover45 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)MarkqueleshaDegrassilover45 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an active blood donor and it's something that's important to me. Also, no personal attacks.-- Terrillja talk  03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ady Gil/Earthrace article
Here is the lead sentence of the article I based my contribution to the Ady Gil article on. Compare this with your edit: "Fresh footage appears to back Sea Shepherd anti-whaling protesters' claims that a Japanese vessel rammed them last week." Now, here is your edit: "A video taken on board the Ady Gil just before the collision appears to show that the deck crew was resting and not engaged in any anti-whaling actions when the Shōnan Maru 2 approached."Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You admit, in your first post in this discussion section (Arbitrary Break), that you were "neutralizing" my contribution, and since it was directly based on the news article, you were "neutralizing" the news. I insist that you revert your edit of my replacement text to reflect the actual content of the news article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is another news source saying the Ady Gil was "rammed" by the Japanese vessel: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/01/08/Sea-Shepherd-Ramming-wont-stop-us/UPI-16891263002116/ Fourth paragraph: "The Ady Gil, a lightweight 70-foot boat, was rammed Wednesday by a Japanese ship providing security for the whalers. The boat sank under tow Friday."Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another one from the L.A. Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/antiwhaling-boat-andy-gil-sinks-off-antartica-while-being-towed-.html. Headline: Rammed anti-whaling boat Ady Gil sinks off Antarctica.Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another from Times Online, 10th paragraph: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6983288.ece "Video footage of the incident appears to back the claims by the Ady Gil crew that they were deliberately targeted by the whaler. The footae (sic) shows the Ady Gil lying stationary in the water, as the Shonan Maru 2 changes direction to steam at speed toward them. the Ady Gil crew are seen clambering into the back of their boat as the Japense (sic) ship, firing water cannons at them and nearly submerging them with its wake, ploughs into their boat."Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's yet another professional news organization using the word "rammed" to describe the actions of the Japanese vessel: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/photogalleries/photography2010730170/ "This photo received and taken on January 6, 2010 from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society shows the Sea Shepherd's ship Ady Gil (L-front), a wave-piercing boat formerly known as "Earthrace", being rammed by Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru No. 2 (R) in Antarctic waters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofnemo (talk • contribs) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another story from the L.A. Times, in case you think the other story just snuck past the editors: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-whale-boat7-2010jan07,0,4710554.story "Both the boat rammed by a Japanese vessel and the craft that rescued six activists off Antarctica were bought with donations from the entertainment industry figures."Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Television New Zealand uses the "r" word in headline: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/rammed-boat-hoped-salvaged-3325469 "Rammed boat hoped to be salvaged"

So, Terrillja, could you please revert your edit?Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofnemo (talk • contribs)
 * The news does not have to be neutral, we do. For instance, the December 8, 1941 Boston Post cover was "JAPS DECLARE WAR ON U.S. ATTACK HAWAII". Obviously the title there was created to stir people to action, just as the media does these days. You make money by drawing readers in, so obviously the media will try and amplify the event to get more readers. Our role is to interpret it in the realm of wp:npov.-- Terrillja talk  19:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Are you claiming the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor? If I used that article and wrote, "On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the U.S.", would you rewrite it to say, "On December 7, 1941 a conflict occurred at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii between the Japanese and U.S. navies."Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting to be a nice article, isn't it? As they say- nothing better for an article than lots of media attention and a good fight over the editing process ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I'm not sure the two from last night understand what the problems were, but it is definitely better for now. Once it stabilizes some I'll go though and clean up references, but it's still in a bit of a flux now, so I'll wait for the time being. Interesting thing I found about the Orion calling in the whaling fleet's location, isn't it? Small world in the middle of nowhere, I guess.-- Terrillja talk  01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Language
Montenegrin language is offical language in Montenegro. It has it own standard and awaits to apply for the ISO code. All the state documents are written in Montenegrin language, all web sites in Montenegro state Montenegrin as language. If someon don't like the idea of Montenegrin language, then that's his problem. It's offical and that's fact. I hope you understand that we must stop those articles from vandals. 88.207.51.221 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why am I the only one honored by your warning. Shouldn't 88.207.51.221 get one? He's the one who started reverting my changes. "Montenegrin" is not a standardized language, there is no regulation body, it does not have an ISO code and the only identifier, ISO 639, defines it as an alternate name for Serbian. Just because the Montenegrin government has recognized this language, doesn't mean Wikipedia can. Imagine if the Toronto municipal government recognized Torontonean as a language, what, would all Toronto-related articles be described in Torontonean and not English, which is exactly the same (just like Montenegrin = Serbian language). For example, the Croatian language, despite being similar to Serbian, is recognized in the world and I fully support all Croatia-related articles to have a translation in Croatian - it just makes sense. However, I'm sorry, until the Montenegrin language is world-wide recognized, it can not be officially used for Montenegro-related articles on Wikipedia. I suggest you revert 88.207.51.221's changes and warn him on his talk page. Regards, -- Cin é ma C 15:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They got a warning as well, from another user. If the CIA Factbook (which has been approved as a reliable source multiple times) says that their official language is Montenegrin and their constitution (of a sovereign nation, not a city) states that the official language is Montenegrin, then those are 2 pretty powerful sources. Comparing that to the lack of an ISO code doesn't make any sense. How can you cite that something isn't there? Standardization agencies are well known the world round for taking forever to recognize changes. Given the sources, I feel that Montenegrin would be the correct language for articles about things located in Montenegro. And I do understand that Montenegrin/Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian are all very similar. I lived in the region this fall for 3 months. -- Terrillja talk  04:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Language is Montenegrin while some changed it to Serbian Cyrillic. I am trying to say the same thing, that ISO code isn't nothing compared to Constitution. Request for ISO code was sent but like you said, it takes ages for them to accept all. Where we can complain about this thing? Rave92 (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that we use both the Serbian and Montenegrin language in the articles? Please get back to me on this on my talk page. Regards IJA (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
for fixing this typo on my bot's user page :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your bot re-adding tags here and here-- Terrillja talk  18:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad that it helps :). - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw this. Are you a tattoo artist as well? :p -- Terrillja talk  19:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, nice one - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for the help fighting vandals on my user page. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

apparant disagreeing with sources on Paul Watson
Greetings! You recently undid a few edits of mine and initiated a discussion on my talk page that seems to indicate that the perspective of the news media outlet is "foolish" and thus should be disregarded. Have I understood your stance correctly? If so, please understand that there was a very public and notable discussion between Paul Watson and Glenn Beck which I believe I documented adequately here, on the use of the word terrorist. You commented in you edit fields and in my talk page that what the news source says, never happened accoding to you and therefore the news source is unreliable. Granted, I do not know if you are an epert in the field or have had first hand experience of the situation but generally, in accordance with WP:NPOV we're not after the truth in these articles. We after presenting the perspectives of the notable experts in an encyclopedic way. If you independant research indicates that a notable newssource differs from your perspective, we still presnt the perspectives of the notable newssource in a non-biased way. I think you disagreed specifically with how one news person viewed the events of the Ady Gil sinking in a light unfavorable towards the Ady Gil, and from your perspective, the Ady Gil was blameless. Let's try not injecting our own POV, but try to present the notable POV's as they exist to provide our readers with an accurate representation of the notable opinions out there. Peace and Happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When did I ever say that the Ady Gil was blameless? When? I didn't.
 * What I said was that the source was clearly wrong about whose ship was sunk and that therefore casts doubt on anything else that they have said as unreliable. Read what I said, read the source, then hopefully you will understand. It's not a perspective or POV, it's not going with a blatantly wrong source when according to you there are loads of other sources out there. So pick one. And you might want to read WP:DTTR as well.-- Terrillja talk  03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you also just pick one venue. Your talkpage, where this started, one of the talkpages of the affected articles, whatever, just pick one spot instead of spreading the same conversation all over the place.-- Terrillja talk  04:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding iTampo
I've reposted my note on iPad, about the pun-trending topic iTampon that reached higher in Twitter trending topics and also included a reliable source: an article from the online edition of Business Insider, with it's link to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.88.102 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And it was removed by another editor for reasons that I agree with. Please do not continue to disrupt Wikipedia with irrelevant facts.-- Terrillja talk  21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding limitations
Please clarify what was subjective on the limitations, only confirmed differences from iPhone 3GS are listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameerb (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that it is a completely different device from the iPhone. As I said, any comments on limitations that are noted by respected publications can be included, just like how the lack of a firewire port in the macbook was noted and added to the article based on a review by a reliable source.-- Terrillja talk  03:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of image from iPad
Please explain why you removed the image from the article, iPad. You might want to look over Image_use_policy. Thanks!-- iBentalk/contribs If you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a fully replaceable image and violates the policies on free use. Given that it will be deleted soon, I have removed it from the article so that hopefully someone will add a free image.-- Terrillja talk  03:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, the product is not out yet... Also, before you eliminate the old image, you need to have a new image in place.  If you care that much, at least put a "Free image needed" image.-- iBentalk/contribs If you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been announced, reporters have hand their hands on it and reports are that it will be in stores soon, therefore it is replaceable. And no, I do not need to promote violations of Wikipedia's policies until someone comes up with a new image.-- Terrillja talk  03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Just wanted to drop you a note to say it might be time to take a step back to calm down. Your recent talking points here is coming off as personal attacks and may not be the best way to get your point across. Phrases like "don't sick your head in the sand...", "...commentator look like a fool who can't get his facts straight...", "don't come up with figures as you see fit..." are all directed to another editor. Comments in the talk page should be focused on article material, not others editors. A good place for civil discussion of etiquite is the talk page of an inmdividual user, but even there you'll get what you want most effectively by civilly considering how your comments are coming off. I hope that wasn't too abrasive. Going for peaceful collaberation here. Keep the edits coming! :) --199.178.222.252 (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No the comment about the fool was Beck, who I think I pretty clearly stated was telling things as facts that are clearly not true. I'm all for reliable sources, but a fair bit of common sense is also a good policy. Going with a reference where the commentator is clearly misinformed and taking it as the gospel is IMO ridiculous. I'd love to discuss some way forward, but it seems that everyone else would rather go off on tangents about who hit who when it has nothing to do with the text that this reference is supposed to support. Instead of discussing something positive i spend my time discussing unrelated things and frankly wasting my time. -- Terrillja talk  05:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think as long as we don't use that quote for historical facts, but just to present notable opinion, then it's useful. You are right though that it wouldn't be a good source of reliable facts when it's obvious in that particular quote that he misspoke regarding who was sunk. --199.178.222.251 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags on Commons
Hi, I've reverted your edits where you included the speedy deletion template on several iPad images on Commons. Although the images do indeed contain copyrighted interfaces, the image isn't itself a photo of the interface, but of the device, which is not copyrighted. Mathias-S (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The photos clearly show a copyrighted software product. If the screen was blank, no question, but as soon as there is any part of the iPhone OS shown, it's a violation of Apple's copyrights, just the same as a screenshot of a desktop operating system. To add, if the images were on en.wiki, I would have tagged them as a software screenshot as well, but I don't think their quality would justify moving them over here.-- Terrillja talk  21:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The photos are of the device, they're not screenshots of the interface. There are thousands of pictures where copyrighted interfaces are clearly visible on Commons with a CC license or in the public domain, see for example commons:Category:Dell Latitude, commons:Category:Nokia Nseries, commons:Category:Hewlett-Packard Laptops, commons:Category:QWERTY smartphones or even commons:Category:Apple Store where the Apple logo (which is copyrighted) is clearly visible in several images. Even if the image does contain copyrighted elements, the image itself can be licensed with a CC license or be released in the PD. Mathias-S (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense. You can't release something that you don't own. We went over this exact same argument a while ago on the macbook article. If the device is powered up and showing the UI or software, those elements are copyrighted and an applicable license must be chosen which states who the owner of these elements is. Whether or not you want to call it a screenshot, it's a picture of the device in a state which the copyrighted UI and software can be seen. As for your links, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have other files which flaunt copyright laws doesn't mean we need to encourage more of it in the future.-- Terrillja talk  22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: other things called iPad
Sorry, I disagree. The article doesn't have to be a disambiguation page in order to list some of these other products. Those products are part of the story. Whether it effects the story positively or negatively, doesn't matter -- we're not here to write a press release from Apple on this thing. We're here to tell the story of the product. The fact remains that the name iPad is not original, and there are several products that came before it, and not just a Fujitsu device which seems to be in the same class of product as Apple's. So no, I don't think that it should be removed because it's sourced by a reliable citation and it's relevant to the story.

For what it's worth, I have backed off on the Twitter/iTampon thing, which was getting a bit old. But I can't back off on these "other products" because I disagree with your logic on it. Sorry. WTF? (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're trying to tell me a bra is important to mention in an electronics article? Seriously?-- Terrillja talk  19:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be best to discuss this on the iPad talk page? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had posted there, but neither one of you has decided to reply there, so I took the discussion directly to you.-- Terrillja talk  22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Airplaneman talk 05:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, you've got new messages... anyways, check this out if you'd like... *sigh*... Airplaneman  talk 23:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I think it is a good idea, so perhaps you will enjoy using it, I just think the developer should build in some privacy controls. The thought that you can be tracked without your knowledge... bit worrisome. And iBen, well that is about in line with his past edits, such as using a templated agf warning after I warned him about copyright violations. -- Terrillja talk  23:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit of hypocrisy there, as he asks people not to template him. I've had brushes with him as well, the only user to date, really, that I have not been able to work harmoniously with... :( Airplaneman  talk 00:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wish I could claim the same, however you can only spend so much time on new page patrol and editing on controversial subjects before you find some very argumentative er....passionate... people.-- Terrillja talk  00:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, guess I've been lucky so far :). Airplaneman  talk 00:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear this up I was NOT trying to wikistalk you. The only reason I added you to the list is so I would know if your were online because we were corresponding back and forth. I have been busy recently and have not been able to answer all the requests, questions, and comments on my talk page. I did not attempt to add you again; you made it clear that you didn't want me to. The reason I am writing this is because you did not assume good faith by talking with a bunch of different users about how I should be blocked. Perhaps the developer should have a request system; in the future, before I add anyone, I will ask for their approval. ✅-- iBentalk/contribs If you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well ignoring my request to be removed did not earn you any brownie points. I know you ignored it because you were editing after I left the message. Having seen the potential for abuse of the tool I did the prudent thing by notifying the developer of my concerns and notifying another user who already had a discussion going on their talkpage about being added to your list. That discussion had been initiated before I had done anything else. For the record, I never tried to get you blocked, however I did raise concerns about your ignoring of my request to be removed after being told by the developer that misuse of the tool was a blockable offense.-- Terrillja talk  01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please respond to the part about "I was NOT trying to wikistalk you. The only reason I added you to the list is so I would know if your were online because we were corresponding back and forth.". Thanks!-- iBentalk/contribs If you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 02:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We had already established that the images were in violation of Apple copyrights and I was placing talkback tags by the time you added me, so weak excuse. Ignoring my request to be removed only made you more guilty of abuse. I'm not going to pursue anything further with this, but in the future if someone makes a strongly worded request, it would be in your best interests to answer it in a timely manner.-- Terrillja talk  02:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅Dealt with...-- iBentalk/contribs If you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 05:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)