User talk:Trusilver/archive1

Copywriter's League
Thank you for the encouragement and invitation. Indeed, I have not eaten everything from my plate; for I have a university exam Monday. I will, however, add my name to your League's register. Once your project is active, I shall likely encounter more pages like Canadian Literature, Chinese armies in the Second Sino-Japanese War, History of Money, and Aduthurai, in which I have had to translate a whole article from very poor English. I am most proud of Mantua, an article I have become very fond of. Rintrah 13:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable school deletions
I have been actively involved recently in tagging non-notable schools for deletions. Before you decide to complain/flame me for this, I ask that you consider the merits of your article in relation to the Wikipedia policies on notability. The work I am doing there is not personal, I don't get any big thrill out of getting rid of the article that you worked so hard on, I simply am attempting to uphold the Wiki policies that are already in place. Trusilver 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel the same way. I still give some articles more benefit of the doubt than I should. I found, while going through the Dead End pages, many vanity or non-notable people and places. As you say, it's not about judging the value/nonvalue of the subject but whether it fits under Wikipedia policies. --Pigman (talk &bull; contribs) 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Copyediting Welcome!
I'm looking forward to working with the League of Copyeditors. It's a niche I think fits me. --Pigman (talk &bull; contribs) 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing delete tags
''It would be apprecitated if you would adhere to Wikipedia policy concerning the contest of deletion. Please use the talk page to explain and discuss removal of delete tags so that a consensus can be reached rather than arbitrarily removing tags without comment. I personally would like to see every single school that has ever been constructed in the entire span of human history to have an article. However, Wikipedia has specific guidelines for notability and neither of our personal opinions count on that matter. Thank you!Trusilver 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)''


 * Disregard this, I could have sworn that I had I had afd1'd both of those articles, but it turns out I had only labeled them as proposals for deletion. The error has been corrected, please stop back by both of them and give your input on these two schools.Trusilver 22:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 

I have read the policy regarding prod on the Proposed deletion, and it appears I am well within my rights ro remove a prod tag without providing an explanation on the talk page. Also I think your statement regarding the importance of our personal opinions on the matter of notability is patently false. I'm certainly allowed to have an opinion on whether an article meets the WP:N. :-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

copyediting
Hi, I was wondering whether you had a suggested procedure for nominating an article for copyediting. I am in the curious position of working on both a book and the occasional article in wikipedia. While I go over some of these larger edits here, I find after re-reviewing them some weeks later that the tone was wrong, or was engaging (or tenses were wrong), among other things. I don't really think street racing is seriously bad, per se, but I'd like it if somebody else could look over it and catch the mistakes I made as I rebuilt it a little while ago. ... aa:talk 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Thank you for the encouragement
May we have many copyediting adventures together!Shawn Fitzgibbons 20:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Albert Barillé
i find the quote here.i copy it world by world.--Pixel ;-) 15:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

inclusion of the article in its entirety?
Hi, Trusilver. While I'm not really a proponent per se of street racing, I am puzzled by your suggestion that the article not be included. I can only think that you intend to salt it...? It seems to me that it is "notable" enough, well documented (there are at least a dozen sources in the article, at least one of which is from a police department), and in fact the precursor to many current, legal racing, such as funny cars.

I'd welcome an opportunity to work with you to improve it, but please understand I have no real allegiance to the article, I'd just rather it didn't suck. It was my feeling that this sequence of edits vastly improved the quality of the article. Initially, I was concerned that it would be impossible to cite most of the things mentioned in the article, but was pleased to find that it's a well documented phenomenon (which is not to say I am pleased it occurs, but rather that it is documented for the sake of the article).

cheers, '''... '''aa:talk 16:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Trusilver. I haven't heard anything from you in a while; I guess you are on holidays. Your wiki-project, the League of Copyeditors, is flourishing, as you can probably see on the page. Anyway, enjoy your holidays (which I assume you are on). Rintrah 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors participation drive!
Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:
 * Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
 * Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! Budding Journalist 08:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Merrick
Hello. I noticed that you added the copyedit tag to Joseph Merrick. Could you explain what about the article inspired you to add this tag? The tag covers a lot of ground (grammar, tone, etc.), so I'm wondering what you think the article particularly needs so I can try to provide that. Thanks. Doctormatt 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed those quotes and the copyedit tag. If you have other specific suggestions for the page, feel free to add them to the talk page. Cheers, Doctormatt 05:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cefalù Cathedral
Architectural History is my subject. The grammar, style and tone are appropriate to the material and to an encyclopedia. The whole is cohesive, having been extensivelly editted by a single person to make certain that it is. I've checked the spelling. What's the problem? --Amandajm 04:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your explanation and apology!

God bless!--Amandajm 01:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

UCLA/USC
Thank you for fully reverting those vandalisms, I didn't catch that. -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, and I'm watching that particular IP address... he's been busy tonight. Trusilver 06:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Buh? &mdash;Xezbeth 18:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, sorry. I spend my whole day reverting vandalism. It is almost a nervous twitch to hit ctrl-v whenever I put my cursor in the edit summary box. Trusilver 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Trusilver, you accused me of vandalism. Do you really think I was trying to vandalise? NO! I was trying to add on to the Air Farce article because the Chicken Cannon article forgot to mention certain targets! This is a total conspiracy! I demand an apology as of Right NOW! Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.246.181 (talk)


 * I'm sorry, who are you and beside not following correct talk page procedures what is your issue? If you'll excuse me, I revert probably 100-200 cases of vandalism a day and I cannot for the life of me figure out what you're talking about. Trusilver 01:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help in reverting the vandalism to the Mount Kenya article. :-) Mehmet Karatay 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to help. Trusilver 20:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Field high school
umm its not really schoolcruft when ur actually doing the article on your own school thank you very much!!!! (sarcasm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.199.172 (talk)

While you are certainly welcome to your opinion, I will continue to edit out any information from the Field High School article (and any others for that matter) that contains unencyclopedic content (see WP:SCFT) and fails to conform to the standards outlined under the WP:SCH and WP:NPOV policies. I suggest your familiarize yourself with these before you make any further edits. And concerning the tone of your comments, both in the article itself and on my talk page, you might also want to read up on WP:CIVIL. Have a good day. Trusilver 20:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

oh amendments for wikipedia hmm wow must be just like the constitution ayy? well I'm pretty sure field high school is not in the encyclopedia that's why its on wikipedia and im also pretty sure what i put down were facts therefore making it encyclopedic content. but w/e i don't really care it's/your just an annoyance. well to be civil (on the internet) i must tell you to have a good day and am sorry for wasting your life even though you spend it editing comments on wikipedia. oh and are u a deletionist? oh for the record here's is the definition of schoolcruft so let's talk more about being civil b/c from my understanding you're telling me that my school is a worthless....

1. 	schoolcruft A worthless Wikipedia entry on an uninteresting school that has no worthiness of an entry whatsoever. Although it angers those who follow deletionism, there is a highly organised group of trolls who rig votes for deletion and intimidate neutrals in order that such crap is kept.

But i learn to listen to things so i will say one last thing "BK have it you way" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.171.3 (talk)


 * I have no interest in arguing with you so I'm going to assume that whatever that was you just wrote was your way of saying you intend to adhere to Wiki policy. Have a good day. Trusilver 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV
Thank you for making a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Jmlk 1  7  04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. The user in question was giving a final warning on June 8th and then vandalized multiple articles today. What am I missing? Trusilver 04:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry it took me long to get back to you, but in answer to your question, while yeah, the user was previously warned, sometimes it's a good idea to have a more current warning...not to say if someone was warned, say, on the 9th, and then comes back with a vengeance that I would not block them, but it is often a good rule a thumb. Also, keep up the great anti-vandal work.  I love seeing it :)  If you need any help, or have any other questions, just head on over to my talk page.  Jmlk  1  7  07:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

?
There are more than 2 people envolved, there are obviously several. One who keeps wanting to add pov labels and several others who delete them. You are welcome to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.17.2 (talk)


 * I'm sorry, judging from your contributions I assume that you are responding to my comments concerning the Goldwater Institute article. I have no interest in the article, my only reason for commenting was to point out that an edit war accomplishes nothing and all parties involved need to take their issues to the talk page rather than continuously revert each other's edits. Trusilver 05:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no edit war, there are no uncivil comments. Assistance is great, hypersensitivity is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.17.2 (talk)


 * Since assistance is great, it appears we are in agreement. Take your issues to the talk page and work on clearing up your current impasse. Talking about the issues now is preferable to waiting until the article is placed on protected status and talking about it becomes mandatory for making edits. Also, there is a handy button below the edit bar for signing your comments, could you please use it? For that matter, If you are planning on spending some time here I suggest you create an account - there's no downside to it and it has it's benefits. Trusilver 19:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am no longer going to sign up an account with Wiki, doing so only results in harassment from highly ideologically driven individuals who follow you around reverting your posts (despite the fact that in the long run one of the most controversial articles which I created the bulk of has been sustained by other editors for 2 years). No I won't waste my time creating another account, I will just move from computer to computer and change up the IP.

Jay S. Thomas
Thanks so much for helping to watch the whole process today. I normally work with uncontroversial matters, such as townships in Ohio, and I definitely am not accustomed to dealing with stuff like the Thomas article. I guess the way it's turned out is a good example of how Wikipedia is supposed to work :-) Nyttend 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. The whole act of recent change patrolling and vandalism reverting starts to get boring after a while without the occasional raging psychopath to break up the monotony. :) Trusilver 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/143.58.160.62
I've added another to the list. User:Rellis0415. Corvus cornix 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dhaut - you think? He was the only polite one of the bunch. Corvus cornix 22:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He wasn't THAT polite, and he just happened to start an account fifteen minutes or so after the last IP was banned. Trusilver 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought he might be a meatpuppet, but I won't disagree with your assessment. :)  Rellis needs to be blocked for continuing the legal threats.  Corvus cornix 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I noticed that too, I'm really surprised that he hasn't been already. This entire point might be moot seeing that Dhaut's position on the AfD page was that he just wants the article deleted (and in fact did blank the page which I then reverted). If he is the same user, that would suggest he's thrown in the towel...or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. Trusilver 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's bit of insanity
===Hey man, leave me alone about that what you people with all that time on your hands call "vandilism". You ain't got no right to pester someone. I don't pester you you don't pester me, you got that? I also don't want you to be telling me what to do with MY page, I'll delete your superflyous comments if I see fit. Now meditate on that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.166.70 (talk)


 * I have graded your comment to me, and found a total of three spelling errors, four grammatical errors and a punctuation error. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to give you an "F". You have vandalized Reparations for slavery four times and then attempted to delete the warnings given to you on your talk page which despite your misconception, does not belong to you. Removing warnings carries with it the same penalty as vandalism on any other page, and I was quite kind to give you a second "final warning" rather than sending your act of vandalism to an admin to enact a block on your IP. Trusilver 02:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

talk page blanking
The best guide I can find is User_page, which indicates that archiving is preferred, but policy doesn't prohibit removing warnings.--Chaser - T 07:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you for finding clarification on that. Trusilver 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem
Yeah, that guy seemed intent on spamming lol. They come around a little too often it seems, but that's why we have AIV, and are lucky to have editors like you who are on the good end of the spectrum and work hard around here. Thanks again buddy! Jmlk 1  7  06:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. unfortunately I'm out for the night. when my visions starts to double, I've been sitting in front of the computer too long. :) Trusilver 06:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Leviathan
I moved the Judaism section to Leviathan in rabbinic literature

Yeah, I know. I caught it about a second after I hit the button to roll it back. I reverted my edit almost immediately afterward. Trusilver 02:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

can you vote on if leviathan and leviathan in rabbinic literature should be merged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leviathan#Merge_from_Leviathan_in_rabbinic_literature note the leviathan article is 14,249 bytes and the leviathan in rabbinic literature is 5,707 bytes --Java7837 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Belated thank you
Many thanks for the LoC barnstar; I really appreciate it! I think the project is great and is going well and will be around for a long time. It's a wonderful place for people to go for help with the oft-neglected issue of copyediting, and it's improving articles a bit at a time and improving all Wikipedia in the process :) Again, many thanks - and good luck with the project! -- Editor at Large  •  talk  15:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!
Trusilver,

Thanks so much for the Pisses-Me-Off-But Barnstar! I'll keep it with pride! See, great minds don't think alike! And maybe this'll piss you off even more! Aim well! Noroton 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting
thanks to you for starting copyediting in the Language movement. I hope you'd enjoy it and finish it out. Regards Tarif from Bangladesh 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm hoping to finish within the next couple hours. I am going to require a proofread from someone who primarily uses British English. I'm American and even when I try not to, I occasionally let an American spelling slip out when I'm editing British English articles. I will let you know when I'm finished and get your comments. Trusilver 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great work. Now may be you too have become a soldier of the language (bhasha soinik). :) We can't probably thank you enough. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 04:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Brilliant!!!(is that spelling all right?). Thanks a lot for your wonderful effort and hard labor. Yesterday when I was preparing to go to bed, I saw you started copyediting and hoped when I would wake up, I will see something great. And let me tell you I couldn't hope for any better. Anyway I'll have more look to see if there is any problem.

I'll let you know whether the article is nominated for FA. And I will be counting on you in similar situation later. Cheers and Regards Tarif from Bangladesh 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

CSIHSIS
Thanks for your comment at the AfD. I've surprised some people similarly--in both directions. The only way to go with long-standing issues like this like this is to get used to agreeing about the 90% of clear ones either way, and concentrate on individual borderline casesDGG 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Generally speaking, nearly every AfD for schools is pretty clear-cut. I like to give schools the benefit of the doubt, I will vote to keep a school that is poorly written and does not assert notability just as long as I can do a little research and see that there is evidence of notability that just hasn't been put in the article yet. Trusilver 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re.Vandalism
You're welcome. Keep up the good work! :-) Regards, Hús  ö  nd  15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lenny McLean

 * Thank you very much. I like to think that the work around here is its own reward, but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate being noticed for it. Trusilver 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Regarding the article Walk Away (Movie), which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is not an article about a person, a group of people, a band, a club, a company, or web content - it is an article about a movie. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Issue with Movie
Hey buddy. I looked through it all, including page creator, edits, etc, and I believe you are right. The whole movie is just a vanity or ad, and has no significance whatsoever around here. I've deleted it, and there is no reason to have wasted time with an AfD. For future reference, you can always use, add a dash, and then fill in a reason for the deletion. It's sort of an "other" category. Helps in situations like this. Hope all's well, and keep up the great work! Jmlk 1  7  00:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very bad advice. Speedy is limited the the categories specified, You can use the no category one, but if it doesn't fall into an obvious category it will not be deleted--at least it should not have been deleted. the prev. admin was wrong to delete it. There is no "other," please re-read WP:CSD. DGG 00:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When there is no good category for speedy, it is necessary to use some other way of deletion. If you think the deletion will be uncontested, use WP:PROD which is just as easy (and dont forget to notify the editor who wrote the article); if you think it will be disputed, the only way to go is with WP:AFD, which is unfortunately a little complicated to set up, but you'll get used to it. If you have trouble doing this with an article, you can ask me or any admin for help.  (I'll follow up on this particular article.) You should read WP:Deletion Policy, which explains the choices and the rationale, but you'll learn with practice, just as the rest of us.DGG 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sincere apologies--but it was not clear to me where you were at. glad you know the ropes.DGG 01:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've set up plenty of articles for deletion before, but that's not why I didn't want it to go in that route. I wanted to see it speedy'd because I thought it rather idiotic to actually convene a discussion over an article that is a blatant hoax or vanity piece. (Besides, I love Twinkle's one-button command to set up an AfD :) ) I mean, if that's the way we need to go, that's the way we need to go.. I'd rather not put Jmlk in a compromising position over this, but it's a joke to actually treat this as though it's even close to a legitimate article when even the supposed actor/director's page was CSD'd last night for a total lack of notability. Trusilver 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey buddy, no worries about putting me in a compromising situation...sorta goes with the admin job around here lol. An Afd may end up being the best choice here for the article, but you seem to have researched it a LOT more than me.  If I undelete it, would you might setting up the Afd?  You would probably be able to explain it better than I would be able to.  Thanks!  Jmlk  1  7  09:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I'm headed to bed now but as soon as I wake up I will slap an AfD on it and go through the whole dog and pony show. Oh yes!, the author of the page in question would like to voice his displeasure with the deletion...or rather I think that was the sentiment he was trying to convey when he vandalized my user page today...twice :) Trusilver 09:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was without internet for a day or so, but I restored the article...feel free to set up with Afd whenever you like :). Thanks again!  Jmlk  1  7  01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's taken care of. And I was starting to wonder what had happened to you, you seemed to just drop off the face of the Earth all of a sudden. Trusilver 02:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also... if you ever need to contact me... my YIM screenname is "TrusilverUSAF", I am generally faster to respond here than I am to messages here. Trusilver 05:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please relax!
The editing on January 17 wasn't vandalism. I was only correcting something that was wrong. He wasn't elected pope the 17 January bu on the 7:th! He was born on the 17:th which i also added if you didn't notice. Simply forgot to write in the edit line... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.178.49 (talk)
 * Yes, and you might have read a comment I wrote about that on your talk page. Trusilver 19:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Srry... didn't see that until after i wrote here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.178.49 (talk)
 * Not a problem, give some thought to creating a username. It prevents a lot of hassles and if there is a downside to it, I can't think of what it could be. Trusilver 21:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Walk Away (Movie)
Sending it to AfD is exactly right. Generally, if you think it's going to be a problem, it saves trouble to send it there. There's rarely any point in replacing an speedy. If honest, AfD is the place; if gaming the system, they will just take it off again. (And this really wasn't a A7--I think it's in general right that films and books & so on are better not A7, because nobody knows them all, & it's very easy to make mistakes--I've seen some remarkable blunders, not that this is likely to be. )DGG 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Trusilver 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive
I took the liberty of moving your archive to User talk:Trusilver/archive1, as it was sitting in the main article space. &mdash;Xezbeth 05:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Trusilver 06:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

-Erik A Williams
When they do this sort of thing there is rarely a problem, because they shoot themselves in the foot. I see a number of people have noticed & the longer he & his fans go on, the more they prove non-notability (which is sometimes a shame, because once in a while someone is notable, but nobody will believe it after their antics). Admins here do sometimes make mistakes in closing, but almost never are taken in by things like this. DGG 01:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC) (and there's usually no need to warn about canvassing as obvious as this; people remember.) It's the subtle ones that need the attention. :) DGG 01:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at it, I appreciate the help and advice. Trusilver 01:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look
Hi, how is it going? Remember, you copyedited the Language Movement article. Since then, some changes are made in the Criticism section. If you have time, please have a look on that. You can also check out the lead section one more time as well. Other parts of the article is remained much the same. Thanks and fly safe-Tarif from Bangladesh 05:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, I've been following your FA debate but I haven't checked any new changes on the article itself. I will take a look at it sometime tonight. Trusilver 05:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your help and support Tru. I will try to keep you up to date with it . Regards-Tarif from Bangladesh 18:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Some more changes are made. May be a little is still remained. You can have a look now :)

Tarif from Bangladesh 12:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All right :) Thanks for reading. --Tarif from Bangladesh 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Megaman111
Hey Trusilver, I've noticed that you left several warnings on User:Megaman111's talk page. I understand that there are extreme POV pushers around, however, and this is only a suggestion, try starting with a lower level warning (i.e. ) instead of starting with level 3, which could seem a bit harsh. anyhoo...happy editing! :D Nat Tang ta 07:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally I base it on the (apparent) intentions of the edit. I very rarely label a POV edit as vandalism, but they were quite blatant in this user's case. After seeing his comments on what he was doing and why he was doing it, I probably would have dropped the original warning to a Lv. 2, but hindsight is 20/20. Judging from his comments though, I think his POV edits were ignorance rather than malice, I doubt he will be a further problem. Trusilver 07:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar time!!!

 * Thanks Jmlk, it's been a helluva lot of fun working with you too. Between the vandals, the vanity pages, the speedy deletes, the vandals.... good times ;-) Trusilver 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Trusilver

 * I need your help with User:162.40.163.58, in which you have also encountered a problem with. This user either doesn't check the messages in which warn against what Wikipedia is not about, or just doesn't care to listen, because this user keeps carrying out edits which are off most of the time. Furthermore, this user committed complete vandalism to the Bianca Montgomery article, which you can see with this link...

This is a user that needs a great amount of Wikipedia guidance, but doesn't respond to messages left on his or her talk page. I honestly need your thoughts on this matter, since you have also encountered this user. Flyer22 04:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I gave this user a warning yesterday, he hasn't vandalized or even edited any more pages. Looking over his edits though, and understand I'm not that familiar with soap operas, I don't feel that most of his edits are vandalism. Rather, I think that in his mind and with the knowledge that he has, the edits that he is making are correct. Next time that he edits something that you can see is blatantly false, either correct it and send him a message - or if you prefer tell me and I will send the next warning and submit him for a IP block if necessary. I'd rather it doesn't come to that though.
 * I'm adding him to my watch list so I can keep an eye on his edits a little more closely. But he must be given a final warning before he can be blocked for vandalism, and that hasn't happened yet. Trusilver 05:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Trusilver. Yes I don't think of this user as a true vandal. But when this user removed the entire Cultural impact section from the Bianca Montgomery article, which I assume was due to a little negative fan-reaction mentioned there, I couldn't help but see that as blatant vandalism.

Thank you for your help. I will try to be patient with this user some more, unless another big edit in which can be classified as vandalism is made by this user. Thanks again. Flyer22 10:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Eragon
Hiya,

I found a message saying i had vandalised the page for "Eragon", this wasnt me, can you tell me when it was done?

Ta, --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.132.110 (talk)


 * Take a look at the difference between the edit you made and the previous version that I reverted to here. I don't know if someone else was using your computer but changing the names of Eragon characters to Star Wars characters is vandalism. Also if you look at the time and date stamps on the linked page, it will tell you when it was done. Trusilver 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I see it now, my younger brother is a Starwars (and Eragon!) fan and he was here on and around those dates, he's admitting nothing tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.37.217 (talk)

Ill sign up an account.


 * Excellent, if you need any help with anything, let me know. Good luck. Trusilver 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism by the United States
Have you any declared interest in this article? I can understood how you would construe such an edit by an anon thusly, and if you do not, I would ask that you please self-revert as there is a very legitimate concern and discussion on this very issue on the talk page. Otherwise I will revert on my own part. Thanks. ---72.65.92.47 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you continue to make blatantly NPOV edits and remove sourced material, I will revert it back and escalate the warning process and have you blocked from editing if necessary. Good day.


 * I'm not particularly thrilled with the state of the article either, but I will continue to protect it from vandalism. Edits of sourced material need to be conducted through consensus, not just because you think you are right and don't feel you need to respect the opinions of others. Trusilver 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that this demonstrates an acknowledgment of unfamiliarity with the involved issues and a cavalier attitude towards them. There is a dispute on the page over precisely the issue of this section existing and there is support from some for deleting it.  That means there is a legitimate editing dispute, not policy violation or vandalism.  I am well aware of the difference.  Please do not aggressively insert yourself into a matter on the basis of nonexistent violations and refrain from reverting if you do not have an opinion on the content.  Thanks.  --72.65.92.47 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you have a third party pull out the offending section then. When an unlogged IP address removed material in an appearance that suggests vandalism, it is going to be reverted. If not by me, it's going to be by one of the other working CVU members. Regardless of whether you are a vandal or not, and I'm not convinced you aren't, someone who has pretty close to zero edit history who rips referenced material out of an article is going to be labelled a vandal
 * Have one of your signed in supporters do it. Trusilver 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While there is support, it often takes bold moves to initiate actual change. As I stated in my first message, I understand why there is confusion, which is why I asked you to self-revert. I hope that you understand my intentions and don't intend to reinforce the first mistake. BTW, the reason I have a small edit history is that my dynamic IP resets whenever I am offline. I don't intend to create an account as of now. --72.65.92.47 01:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to keep my hands off conditionally. You have made an edit which obviously doesn't have consensus and while you are correct that it does often take bold moves to initiate change, this isn't going to be an edit war. If someone else reverts your change back, you are going to continue discussing it without a revert war. Deal?


 * The only other recourse is anyone who removed sourced material without consensus gets taken down the path, so to speak. I agree with you, but my job is to protect ALL articles, not just the ones that I agree with. Trusilver 02:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion will continue, but I am sincerely doubting it will be a revert-less affair. In any case, thank you for backing off.  Too often aggressive vandalism patrollers can't admit that anons contribute anything legitimate.  Thanks.  --72.65.92.47 02:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me out in fighting vandals in Shaq's Big Challenge. Although, it was kinda funny.] --JDitto 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I got a few chuckles out of it too. I get so many little kids trying to throw as many profanities into an article as they can manage, I really appreciate the rare creative vandal :-) And I guess I missed that second vandalism, I hate when multiple vandals hit the same article at the same time.Trusilver 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks Trusilver for my first barnstar! Brianga 05:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem! excellent work tonight. Trusilver 05:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Shaq's Big Challenge
Been reverting IPs on this article all night. Going to bed now. Good luck. Last good version was HorrorMaster34's (or something like that).--Jddphd 06:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, hopefully the page will be protected before I go to bed. :) Trusilver 06:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I've been following the edit waring on State Terrorism by the United States, and I noticed you gave a false vandalism warning to this anon user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:61.6.221.97 However, I looked at their edits, and I see no vandalism. It's a good edit, in fact, not that I condone edit waring, but clearly a content dispute is not vandalism, esp when the editor is restoring material that was removed against consensus per talk. Please explain why you considered that vandalism, or else please retract that false warning on this users talk page. Thanks.Giovanni33 06:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It appeared to be more of a vandalism hit on first glance than it does now. No problem, I'll revert that. The user in question should have been hit for a 3RR violation instead anyway. Trusilver 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I only looked at it because of the edit war and Mongo calling it vandalism (false statement). That editor has 3RR's only, I think. But, so does MONGO.Giovanni33 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That article is fraying my nerves more than any other tonight. I really wish they would get their act together and follow the rules rather than engage in a childish edit war that appears to run pretty much 24/7. Trusilver 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. I think we need to start banning people from that article, since many have proven they can't edit that article like adults.Giovanni33 06:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - Anna Anderson page
I wanted to bring to your attention yet another vandal on the Anna Anderson page called Questforanastasia - this user has removed a huge amount of the page. As I do not wish to become involved in what has been a very ugly edit war, I can only hope you will show this user that such behaviour is totally unacceptable. There is a long history involved in this user and other users vandalism of this page. Sadly they do not understand and then launch extremely personal attacks. They are not interested in discussion. An examination of the discussion page on the subject clearly shows this. I believe the article needs protecting. Thank you so much for your assistance. Finneganw 01:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no huge interest in the article aside from getting extremely irritated over the edit war that's going on there. I am also fairly uneasy about automatically labelling it vandalism. Although Questforanastasia's edits are crass and counterproductive to reaching consensus, they seem to be made in good faith. I'm still giving him/her a notice for removing sourced material without consensus though Trusilver 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)