User talk:Terrillja/Archives/04/2009

Macbook
there was no vandalism, and if you would have bothered to read the edit notes you would have realised that I did cite my source. The bus information is wrong and as a casual wikipedia user that I am I fixed it. Check the apple website (apple.com/macbook) go to the whitemacbook info. I will fix your mistake again, this time pay attention to the notes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.232.226.173 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, from :
 * Processor and memory
 * intel Core 2 Duo
 * 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 3MB on-chip shared L2 cache running 1:1 with processor speed
 * 1066MHz frontside bus
 * 2GB (two 1GB SO-DIMMs) of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM; two SO-DIMM slots support up to 4GB
 * So, once again, your edit was incorrect.-- Terrillja talk  20:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of 667mhz ram? They all have 667mhz RAM, but the speed of the RAM has nothing to do with the speed of the FSB.-- Terrillja talk  20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Patience
You stated that you didn't think I had patience to put up with silly stuff related to admining - I am an admin over at Wikiversity and have been for 6 months. During that time, one of our members (Moulton) was community banned. I had to deal with his constant trolling, sock puppeting, and the rest for a long time. If you want, I can link you to various posts, diffs, and the rest so you can measure directly if I have demonstrated patience as an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on my user page
Thanks for the reverts!  caknuck °  remains gainfully employed  17:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- Wiggles oinks  waddles  17:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Terrillja temp
resolved Hi, I noticed that you claimed this account as yours, but it remains unregistered. Could you clear this up? Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like there must have been a glitch during the usurp of . It was a temp account that was only created so that I could usurp wiggles. Not really sure how that can be taken care of, I'm fine if you csd#g6 it, no reason that anyone would be going there to leave me a message. Speaking of that, how did you come across it?-- Terrillja talk  18:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. To answer your question, I'm currently clearing out Database_reports/Ownerless_pages_in_the_user_space. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Thought it was kinda random that you stumbled across it. Sorry about any confusion it may have caused.-- Terrillja talk  18:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Failed Doppelganger
resolved Hi, please could you visit User:Jac16888/Sandbox. This is a list of failed attempts by users to create doppelganger accounts, and at least one of the pages is yours. Creating a doppelganger account involves actually registering the account as you would normally, simply creating a userpage doesn't do it. Please either create the account, or else indicate that you no longer want the page(s) so that I can delete it. Thank you-- Jac 16888 Talk
 * thanks-- Jac 16888 Talk 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Cannibal King
Hi. Because The Cannibal King had already been prodded just a few days ago, a second prod is not applicable and I had to remove your new prod on the article. I have sent the article to AfD instead. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was one that came out of someone who went on a streak of deleting CSD tags, so I had switched it to a PROD. See above....-- Terrillja talk  18:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing tags
I humbly disagree. I understood what the article was about, enough that it could be expanded. The others may be in a mess, but they satify the relevant criteria. William Jeffman (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not created any of these pages myself. Please stop re-adding the tags. I disagree that they meet the criteria. Please provide further evidence that they do before re-adding them. We should be erring on the side of caution. William Jeffman (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be very careful. You are using inappropriate warnings, as I have not created any of these articles myself. I am acting in a perfectly legitimate way. Please engage me in discussion rather than re-adding the tags or threatening me. William Jeffman (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And how does Kenneth R. Collins have any implication of notability? I grabbed a few random articles to look at, and of the 5 or so I looked at, they were all valid IMO. Please read over the CSD criteria before continuing to remove tags. I am all for including articles, but the basic threshold of notability has to be maintained. We can't allow everything to just exist here. There are some rules.-- Terrillja talk  18:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK fine, let's discuss. But the problem is that, if there is doubt in anybody's mind, the tags need to be removed to enable discussion without the article being deleted in the meantime. William Jeffman (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for stop and discuss, but the article has to have at least some implication of notability. If you want to check out an article to look up sources, etc, then use the template and a summary of something like checking for more info. Leaving a summary that it meets the criteria when it (doesn't) is just making your actions appear disruptive.-- Terrillja  talk  18:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there Terrillja. Thanks for your message. I am with you on this one, the tags need to go back, there is no notability and Mr Jeffman is either currently or about to be in violation of the 3 revert rule. No offence is meant, but this has to stop. Sky83 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked, so they will not be able to (promptly) respond to your talkback tags - so I have removed them. I would note that I have invited William Jeffman to appeal their block with reasons why their actions may not be judged disruptive, so if they satisfy the reviewing admin you may yet have reason to continue your discussions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted their talkpage now and will respond there if they post an unblock. A user that starts a CSD tag removal spree as their 3rd edit smells a bit fishy to me. Looking forward to seeing what they are up to. Thanks for the note.-- Terrillja talk  20:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Professional Bodyguard Association
Hello

I noted your comments and introduce myself as a director the Professional Bodyguard Association.

Yes there has been some vandalism that I have attempted to reverse, albeit in a naive way. I am faily happy with the current content with the exception of the assertion that we "employ". We do not employ people directly which means that the insertion is misleading. If approached to recruit by a company, we respond to that by sourcing and training. We do not employ. For confirmation of my authority to make this comment, you are welcome to go Companies House UK.

The only reason I became involved was because there have recently been attempts to disparage our organisation without reserve. As director I object and require that the insertions be factual at the very least.

Your assistance is very much appreciated.

Regards

Craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professional Bodyguard Association (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reasoning behind your actions. The problem is that we do not allow role accounts or people to edit when they have a conflict of interest. Thinks like asking in the talkpages is OK, but do it under a username which is not the name of your business. Even better, email WP:OTRS and they will make the changes. They are a group of volunteers who work almost exclusively with the public to take care of any libel or slander. Unforntuately, when you go in and make these changes yourself, it gives the appearance that you are trying to tidy up your reputation, regardless of your intentions.-- Terrillja talk  18:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Heidi Montag
Per these comments, I've added a few more refs to the article (I've left the tag...for now). I don't see any BLP violations and after checking the refs, I'm satisfied that the citations back up the content given, however, if you see anything, would you let me know or cite it yourself. Have a great day!  Pinkadelica Say it...  12:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I wake up to a rant on my review page about how I am tearing down wikipedia's core policies. I didn't realize I was making such a controversial edit and that a request to be more specific with their concerns was viewed as some sort of attack. I'll take a look at it later tonight, but I'm stunned that my actions incited such a response.-- Terrillja talk  13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that and the message(s) on the article talk page. Way, way out of line in my opinion. No worries about fixing whatever perceived violations are in the article, I just wanted a second opinion before I remove the tag.  Pinkadelica Say it...  14:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Shedding the Past deletion
resolved Please discuss at its talk page.--Remurmur (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tags removed now that the ref is to the correct site.-- Terrillja talk  03:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Professional Bodyguard Association
Thanks for the comments. Interesting that people should presume the worst of reasoning why a company would want to correct articles. We simply want it to be factual and accurate. Perhaps you will correct the information and remove the insertion "employ" as it does not depict the truth.

Finally so long as the truth prevails, I no longer have an interest in making further edits.

much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professional Bodyguard Association (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)