User talk:Huntthetroll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Huntthetroll, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is editing Ask.com[edit]

I deleted repeated information and it was reverted. What nutjob thinks that something like that is vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.34.147 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Sorry about reverting your last edit. It was a mistake. It should be speedy deleted. Techman224Talk 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:64.74.153.18[edit]

Looks like the IP hopped around a bit while I had to step out for a bit. I blocked the two other IPs that were blanking the page, under the pretense that it's the same user. Hopefully, that will be it. — TKD::Talk 07:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Late or early[edit]

Are you up late or up early. It is past 4:00 am in NJ. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Both. I would have gone to bed, but I was up much of the night helping fight off a massive, coordinated vandal attack. Huntthetroll (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Steeler Nation[edit]

Thanks for keeping an eye on Steeler Nation. It looks like you're dealing with some IP vandals of your own. Godspeed.

Bdb484 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ace Ventura[edit]

Thanks for your kind tone, obviously I'm still learning how things work here. I poked around a little on the site before I did the edit, and from what I found, I thought I was following what I saw here and here. But again, I may be mistaken if I missed a policy or 12 (there seems to be a lot!). Thanks again for being kind about it! 75.72.98.95 (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Symphony X[edit]

See this. You should understand what I mean after you read the discussion (and also past ones) there. FireCrystal (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and no problem. :) FireCrystal (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually no, the band shouldn't be encouraged to label themselves whatever they want because they are a self-published source so another source should take its place. The influences bit in the intro should be enough to cover that they are indeed influenced by these artists but as a source for a genre they play — I don't think so. FireCrystal (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Good luck finding one though. You'll have to dig deep. FireCrystal (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh, nice finds. I didn't expect a result to pop up that quick. FireCrystal (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review limits[edit]

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The rule is there to deal with limited reviewer resources. We don't enforce unless it is a repeat offense, so no worries (although you are very welcome to comment on some other peer review requests ;-) ). Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for peer review of Lahore[edit]

Thanks for the peer review of Lahore.It will be quite helpful for it editors.User:Yousaf465

Universal Energy Corporation[edit]

Hi there - I edited this as you have links that are no correct (as in Universal Energy Corp in the U.S. which is not related to UEC in Toronto Canada). I a rewriting the desc so it is not promotional but factual. Many thanks

Jan D. Nybida —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.103.147 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Take on Me[edit]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I corrected the things in the lead, and removed some parts that were repeated. Please let me know if you have other suggestions or comments. Do you think is ready for GA? I wonder if the cover versions need to be more detailed? Again thanks for the review. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all your help. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Huntthetroll. You have new messages at Cannibaloki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cannibaloki 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandals[edit]

A User that you gave a final warning to has been up to no good yet again, if there is a formal way to request the blocking of an IP adress I am unaware, as it currently stands, the vandal has gone unpunished and I have no authority to do anything about it. Also, if there is a formal way to request a ban I would like a headsup on my talk page. Thanks. Kilshin (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal[edit]

Hello Huntthetroll, you have received this notice because you have placed your name on the list of members of WikiProject Metal. We are currently looking to make the wikiproject more active, and in doing so, we need to have a list of active members on the wikiproject. If you wish to stay an active part of wikiproject metal, please add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Active Users. Conversely, if you wish to leave the wikiproject, please remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Members. Thank you. Dio throwing Horns.jpg

An "incident" with which I've been involved[edit]

What "incident" is that? Is it another instance where I've dared to replace (or complement) incorrect nonsense with rigidly correct content but, sadly, it's disagreed with the politics of your supposedly nonexistent corporate sponsors?

I seem to recall being carped at more than once that I didn't "provide a reference." Since when are references required for common sense? I see technology material all over the place without references. Perhaps the statement "Washington is the capital of the United States" requires a reference.

Please ANSWER, not provide generic drivel about "vandalism." I don't frankly believe you people have the first clue what vandalism is.

50.128.184.140 (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


I'm not the editor, but pasting RANTING over content on the page I follow had ZERO encyclopedic value and falls within Wiki definition of vandalism. The issue is not what you are saying is necessary wrong, the issue is that Wiki is not your blog to post rants. You have to post in a neutral and factual manner. Ranting is easy, posting factual articles is hard. KnowS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not doing one's duties[edit]

Perhaps you should investigate a contributor's credentials before determining whether he is the "sole arbiter of knowledge" (which I never said). Yet, I am unquestionably far more expert in these matters than these half-assed also-rans who propound their shockingly limited command of technical material, colored (as if so required) by given vendors' mantras.

I wonder how many of your "valued contributors" to, for example, computer security articles have their names plastered all over Department of Defense standards or have built high-assurance trusted OS and RDBMS with their own hands—as I have. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater because you find his arrogance to be overpowering: just tone it down as (what did they term you?) an editor or mediator or some such. Perhaps—just perhaps—someone speaks with authority because he IS an authority.

Let's take an example. I edited Cloud computing by adding some well-argued disadvantages. DID YOU NOTICE THAT THERE WERE ONLY ADVANTAGES LISTED? Who ever heard of a technology that offers advantages only, with zero disadvantages? This is naught but utter nonsense.

What's truly ironic is that, if I try to be a "nice guy" by leaving the erroneous material in place (instead of flatly deleting it) and just adding, "It can alternatively be argued that [such and such]," the editors seem to perceive that as useful. Gosh, when I went to grammar school, I learned that a paragraph should not contradict itself from one sentence to the next.

It's no wonder that those friends and associates of mine who are acknowledged experts in their respective fields wouldn't condescend to contribute the first um, er, or punctuation mark to Wikipedia. ONE GETS WHAT ONE PAYS FOR!

I await your valid counter-argument.

BruceDavidWilner (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Problems with common criteria page[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_criteria was vandalized again. You reverted last round, please do so again. It is multiple comments and I am not Wiki-literate enough to understand how to easily undo multiple changes. Thank you. KnowS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, BruceDavidWilner[edit]

Thank you kindly. Oh, I forgot to mention (with reference to my putative expertise in computer security, assuming you'll forgive my "humility") that I was the only person in the history of NSA's Commercial Product Evaluation Program (CPEP) to be formally excused from the required Vendor Security Analyst (VSA) training—by its creator, Dr. Virgil D. Gligor (Carnegie-Mellon, formerly U. of Maryland). If you want to learn something about multi-level secure RDBMS, check out www.rubix.com, a product I built with my own hands (all 510,000 lines thereof) while the ORACLEs and INFORMIXes of the world were merely flapping their lips about their vaporware. I didn't publish about it, as the company's owner (Charlie Testa) was extremely close-mouthed. However, while "authorities" were arguing about this or that flavor of polyinstantiation (Sandhu, Jajodia, and Teresa Lunt [real name: Lipschitz] endeavored to make a career out of it), I provided both flavors—while adding at a conference that "the label is neither a key or a non-key; to me, the whole issue is a donkey, promulgated by monkey."

Oh, I also wrote about 40% of DITSCAP, although I don't consider that a feather in my cap. My friend Barry, who wrote the other 60%, is such a security "guru" that . . . well, I relate the following anecdote.

I was helping him with some minor office nonsense back in, oh, 1998 or so. I had to xerox some documents, and I found that the downstairs copier demanded a four-digit PIN. "How old is Barry?" I asked my associate, Ken. "I think he's 55." I tried 1943 as the PIN . . . no luck. I tried 1942, and the copier hummed to life.

So much for "practicing what one preaches." And, I want you to know that this fellow was a US Naval officer, with the rank of commander, who flew here and there teaching base commanders (Navy captains and Army or Air Force colonels) about computer security. Oh, well . . .

Now, as for my supposedly dismissive attitude, is it possible that my English skills are so overpowering (you may notice—if Wikipedia keeps such statistics—that it takes me, basically, seconds to compose awfully literate-sounding prose [and don't forget my humility!]) that people feel minimized. It is not deliberate. But I do object to unbalanced "explanations" of things that reek of vendor-non-neutrality.

For that matter, I have endeavored to fix some mathematics articles now and then. I notice that the "experts" often fill these articles with utterly extraneous material, seemingly so that they can "wow" others with all those nifty symbols and Greek letters and what-not. Well, gosh, gentlemen, I also know an awful lot of mathematics . . . an awful lot. But it does no good to cow (or, come to think of it, to buffalo) your audience with extraneous, literate-looking crap.

I would actually like to be a mediator. I am qualified. I possess expertise in a wide array of fields. Having skipped four years in the New York City school system and possessing a photographic memory and a classified (for others' good) IQ certainly helps. And it pains me when some goof accuses me of vandalism.

Now, some years ago, when I edited Paul I of Russia and added that he had a homosexual relationship with Caesar's ghost, that was vandalism.

BruceDavidWilner (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral, encyclopedic tone[edit]

I know all about neutral, encyclopedic tone. I'm not so very certain about the neutrality of tone of certain encyclopedias (or a certain encyclopædia, in particular). When I was seven, I used to sit on the floor, reading my older sister's 1964 World Book, cover to cover. Fortunately, I haven't really forgotten any of it.

I can't say I've kept any of my edits to review them for neutrality. And I try rigidly to maintain neutrality—or, at least, open-mindedness—by starting sentences with, "It can alternately be argued," or some such. But the result looks inconsistent, to say the least.

Encyclopedias also (typically) demonstrate correct grammar, as well as style and euphony that do not demonstrate so tin-eared a mnemonica. (I stole that phraseology from "A FORTRAN Coloring Book": read it!) But contributions from blatant non-masters of English seem graciously, even obsequiously, accepted.

Computer science undergraduate, eh? Ever read any textbooks by Mark Allen Weiss? I am still trying to figure out when he learned to write literate English. I used to have to ghost-write all his humanities papers at Cooper Union. Come to think of it, the phrase "ecclesiastical liturgy and vestments" became an in-joke between us. BruceDavidWilner (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reawakened an old one[edit]

Um . . . I'm not that old: I'm fifty and look about thirty. Bear in mind that newer doesn't always mean better. (Did you notice that people are losing interest in Facebook?) When you have time, I'll share some Microsoft "interview" stories with you that will make your hair stand on end. I'm not sure which is more remarkable, their incompetence or their arrogance.

I'm not sure about "hate [me] less," either. Come to think of it, my ex-wife kinda sorta hates me—except when she needs me to bail her out of some project in which she found herself way over her head. At least she's a good-looking girl: check out www.BethesdaAdvancedSolutions.com (assuming she put it back together—there was an "incident" [???] last week—otherwise, you can check the Wayback Machine), and she did give me two awesome sons (now ten), each of whom is more of an intellectual superstar than the other. (Yes, I know: as the old Yiddish proverb goes, Allen aineklach zint iluyim ["Everyone's grandchild is a genius"]). Of course, I want her to pay for my contributions, and she reminds me that I'm behind on child support (arguable), and I remind her that I willingly gave her a gorgeous house in Bethesda, Maryland . . . etc.

Smug, eh? Sarcastic, undoubtedly. The other day, the news was abuzz about how Brett Favre (former star quarterback, Green Bay Packers) couldn't remember his own daughter, presumably as a result of blows to the head for the risk of which he was most sumptuously compensated. I broke up a room of 300+ people by blurting out, "Does he remember his bank accounts?"

And isn't her corporation creatively named? I'd prefer something that shows more creativity, like, perhaps, "Computer Technology Associates" or "American Systems" or "The Intended-to-Be-Profitable Corporation" or some such. Mine was "Network Security Laboratories, Inc." and you can just imagine the li'l gurus running about in their spick-and-span lab coats . . .

So I can't be a moderator? I can't be a Huntthetroll? BTW, why would you hunt trolls? Isn't their territory disappearing? Besides, it's rough enough living in remote, rural Norway . . .

Oh, yeah, "vandalism" comes to mind. I edited an article about odontocetes one time, adding the surprising fact that—since their auditory canals are quite blocked up with epithelium and cerumen by the time they reach adolescence—they actually hear through their jaws. Some "knowledgeable" moderator bitched me out for "vandalizing" the page and threatened various e-penalties. The schmuck couldn't be bothered to check his facts, albeit: he knew better. (I wonder if he works for Microsoft.)

More on "vandalism" vis-à-vis vendor neutrality[edit]

I have noticed that editing Wikipedia content has become even slower than it already was in recent weeks. I initially tried to tie this to my roughly simultaneous acquisition and installation of a putatively maximum-speed modem, but other sites load faster than they did, plus it is clear that saving one's edits to a Wikipedia article is done "on your end" (whatever that may mean), my browser waiting for a copy of the saved, modified page to be pushed anew. (Perhaps I shouldn't say "pushed" insofar as I don't want to get into the uttermost semantics of pushing versus pulling vis-à-vis various HTML directives.)

I was thinking, then, that Wikipedia may have outsourced more of its storage to "the cloud." Without a doubt, as more "providers" move to "the cloud," this gets markedly slower while that gets profoundly slower. (Does this remind you of Inktomi? "Don't store your images locally; give them to us!" It was dropped like a hot potato when things got—guess what—slower and slower.)

But . . . I edited Cloud computing, inserting well-argued disadvantages upon having noted that only advantages were proffered! Imagine my shock when some editor complained that I—you guessed it—vandalized the page. It seemed clear to me that "vandalism" meant "addition of content that makes our deep-pocketed vendor sponsors look like the quasi-competent fools that they are, states that they have reached by hiring quite bright people who are infatuated with their own eccentricities rather than truly ultra-brilliant people who 'break the mold' by not being so blatantly weird or ultra-narrow in scope of knowledge."

What think ye, Master Troll? BruceDavidWilner (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeming bug, seemingly in need of fixing[edit]

Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huntthetroll from Firefox (I'm using v25.0) and explain to me, if you are able, why the "Read Edit" bar overwrites the bold characters that proclaim User talk:Huntthetroll.

Oh, and the phenomenon (kinder than bug or gaffe) that I've witnessed does not pertain solely to the above-referenced page: I've seen it all over the place.

BruceDavidWilner (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiplicity of messages, and What Am I[edit]

Sorry for the multiplicity of messages. I think of many things. Please respond to each one in exhaustive detail or I shall be very angry with you **leers evilly and flaps eyebrows in a menacing fashion**.

What am I? Am I an editor? I was invited to the e-teahouse by some bot or other. What is an "editor"—someone who has created a Wikipedia login? Does it represent something special?

I would love to edit. Bear in mind that I possess advanced knowledge in a peculiar array of areas. I don't want this one (for example) to scare you or convince you that I'm a nut, but I'm one of the most knowledgeable people on the globe on torture techniques and machines and the history thereof. There's a reason behind this. I took a "History of Technology" class as a senior in college and refused to do the same stale "Development of the Locomotive" or "Evolution of the Sewing Machine" nonsense that others chose. I thought it would be fun and entertaining to examine the evolution of the technology of torture, marrying various developments to man's increasing sophistication in physics (a là "simple machines" and such).

Now, such information is quite difficult to find, your standard "scholarly encyclopedia" article being restricted to the standard rack/boot/thumbscrew nonsense. Noting that the Library of Congress lay only eight miles away as the crow flies, I went there and devoured every available book under HV8593 (I still remember the call number), including centuries-old tomes written in French, German, Latin, and Spanish. If it exists or existed, I know all about it—and I mean all about it.

(A humorous advertisement comes to mind: "Unusual, distinctive fun! Torture your friends! Breaks the ice at parties!")

Go ahead, poke fun at me. Tell me I'm dangerous and such. Actually, I'm not: I'm terrific with children and exceedingly kind to animals and puppies and goats and goatlets and such.

BruceDavidWilner (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)