User talk:Trusilver

Unless otherwise specified, I will respond to you on whichever page the conversation started on. If I left a message in a discussion page or on your user page, please respond to me there - I will return and read it there.

This user is a commercial airline pilot and as such is often unavailable for extended periods of time. If he does not get back to you immediately after you leave a message, don't take it personally. He's probably just busy and will respond to you as quickly as possible.

If you have an issue with a vandalism revert I have made, I'm very sorry. I'm not infallible and I will occasionally revert a good faith edit that appears to be vandalism. Leave me a message and I will review my action and reverse it if my assumption was false. And above all...smile and take a deep breath, we all make mistakes and we are both trying to work in the best interests of the project.

Martin Lindstedt article scheduled for deletion

The article Martin Lindstedt has been scheduled for deletion. If you would be so kind as to vote in favor of Keeping the article, it would be much appreciated. I know there are restrictions on rounding up people to participate in this debate, but I don't think my commenting here violates them. Anyhoo, my attempts to edit the article Stephen Schwartz (journalist) are pretty transparently the motive behind this scheduled deletion. While my actions in that article may not have been in the finest traditions of a NPOV (I freely admit I intensely dislike Mr. Schwartz - although the same could possibly be said about the majority of people aware of his existence - I don't think my attempts to include embarrassing anecdotes from his life, with reasonable evidentiary citations, were particularly infamous), I think its a lot MORE non-NPOV for an article of which I've been the de facto caretaker, to be targeted for deletion on a retaliatory basis, by the same Admin who intervened in the case of the Schwartz article, as seems quite transparently to be the case here. Thanks. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Any luck?

Not to press you (its ages away, and I appreciate your job makes WP access rather patchy) but have you chance to poke my edits around? Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I got about three weeks deep into your edits last night. Still working on it. I've notice a few things, nothing terribly noteworthy. I'll let you know all that I think could be an issue when I have finished. Trusilver 05:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, and thanks for the speedy response :). I'll try and lay off editing a bit to make your job easier! also I have a paper that I need to hand in in about five hours and am only half-way through Ironholds (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:216.185.29.68 very disruptive IP on 2/23/2009

Anything you can do would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Stan

I don't understand

I don't understand your most recent comment on Talk:Paul Watson. I have not attempted to place any of this material on the article page since mediation started. What I have done, is repeatedly revise the language I propose should be added there, in the hope of finding something acceptable to the others (other than leaving Wikipedia, that is). The others have proposed no specific alternative language but have repeatedly suggested I go to a different article.

My most recent proposal incorporates suggestions made by the others, to be less specific about the particular instance with which this started, and make a more general statement about her "legal problems." And in this most recent proposal, I added material indicating Paul Watson actually did defend her illegal actions, twice, per your suggestions written above in that section. In what way are these counterproposals attempting to use "brute force?" I was under the impression that this is what negotiation is all about, is it not? I don't understand your response. Are you suggesting I simply capitulate? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it is possible that I didn't completely understand what you were saying in that talk page edit. What I gathered from the message is that you think that the other editors of this article should submit to your changes and discuss whether or not they should be allowed BEFORE removing them rather than remove them and THEN discuss whether or not they should be allowed. Typically, that's not the way things work, especially in potential WP:BLP situations. I'm not specifically targeting anything that you have said or did since the mediation started, neither am I suggesting that you capitulate. Trusilver 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice from the diffs I posted on the Edit warring noticeboard that the difficulty with these editors, or at least with Terjillja, significantly predates the current issue of Watson's wife. For some time before this happened, Terillja was reverting every edit I made on that article, even single words, without discussion. I don't know what the problem is, but it is apparently not limited to just this content issue. That is why I suggested we need an agreement for discussion before repeated reverts are undertaken (I think I posted 8 or 9 on the Edit warring noticeboard). Perhaps that is more a behavioral issue than a content issue, which is why I took it to the Edit warring noticeboard, where (I'm told) it is still pending.

At any rate, I've requested on Talk:Paul Watson that the other editors put forth specific words if they don't like mine, so we can see if with some modifications we can arrive at a mutually agreed sentence or two. Let's see what response that gets. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Beinghuman900

Thanks for your decision here, and I hope I've justified your !neutral vote in my RfA; long time ago, but it's good to know I'm largely(?) getting it right. Of 1600+ blocks, a mere handful have been overturned. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I haven't had much chance to talk to you since then, but I've been quietly watching. If I had it to go back and do over again, you would have undoubtedly gotten my support. I often see you making difficult blocks and doing so both civilly and rationally. Trusilver 09:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

What happens to pages that are never patrolled? Are all pages reviewed at some point (or only secret pages)? Is there a policy or something in this regard, or is it just hit and miss? And what are you up to these days? Anything interesting? Do you create articles or mostly block and patrol? I'm leaving this one for you: Quiet Monkey Fight. I like the name of it and I can't bring myself to push for its deletion... I still have 14 questions left to get to 21. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Some pages slip through the cracks. With as many new change patrollers as there are, every once in a while a bit of vandalism will go unchecked. I was looking at an article on the military readiness of the United States some time back and came to find that they US is backed up in Central America by 121,000 troops and Chuck Norris. As for what I do... I have an article that has been sitting in my sandbox that me and my daughter started working on a little while back, but she lost interest and I have been too bogged down in the other six hundred tasks that always seem to come before actual content contribution. One day though... Trusilver 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As for Quiet Monkey Fight, I'm going to watch it for a few days. I see no reason to delete it when it's only a few days old. I am not of the habit of arbitrarily speedy deleting A7 articles. If it is one I come across myself, I will tag it and let someone else delete it - just so that way there are at least two people involved in the decision. This one would easily get deleted if I were to tag it, but I have sourced it out and it seems to be very marginally notable. Maybe the author will come back and finish it, or possibly hell will freeze over and I can come up with some time in the next few days to do a little work on it myself. I haven't gotten to rescue an article in some time now. Trusilver 09:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A question

Is there an article about that band that played in the Jabba the Hutt's Palace in Star Wars? --62.240.83.145 (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be unsuitable for Wikipedia. However, on the Star Wars wiki there is an article for that band which is named Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes[1]. Enjoy. Trusilver 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Doing a Google Book search [2] reveals the band has substantial independent coverage from several sources such as this one [3]. I think it could support an article no problem if there isn't one already on Figrin D'an or Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes. May the force be with you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I never realized there was an article there for that. Trusilver 17:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help but I was actually looking for this one. --62.240.83.145 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Tru seems very out of touch with the Star Wars universe. I think he needs a refresher of the movies! Although I was impressed he came up with the band name for the group playing at the Mos Eisley Cantina. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I admit, I googled it. Trusilver 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Freida Pinto

Trusilver, I apologize for writing (reproducing) this here -- I read your boxes above -- but it would be great if, whenever you return to the discussion page on Freida Pinto, you could give some attention to this specific point (actually the two of them):

|Trusilver, I can't help having the idea that you did not read what I wrote. I am absolutely not ignoring WP:V. The sentence to be included in the article is ""Pinto" is a name of Portuguese origin." That statement is fully sourced (please just check the sources above). A different question concerns relevance. I gave four arguments for relevance and you did not consider any one of them. Could you please answer this paragraph making a distinction between the two points?|

Thank you very much.Velho (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I believe that I have covered this on the talk page. If there is anything else you need, or you would like me to clarify something, please ask. Trusilver 06:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for the reverts on my page :) Saros136 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. They seem to be out to get you tonight. Would you like me to semi-protect your page? Trusilver 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, not yet...we'll see how I survive. I did get an apology from a vandal, which was cool. The vandalism is ridiculous, but I'm having fun with my new Huggle! Saros136 (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Before I was an admin I would let my userpage be protected when the vandalism got particularly bad until I got a little bit of wisdom from User:DerHexer. He said that he would never protect his userpage because it was better to let the vandals mess with his page rather than mess with a legitimate article. Trusilver 18:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

IP block

This was peculiar. I wonder, though, what your rationale was for blocking the IP for 31 hours without the warning pyramid. One could imagine a ultra-conservative finding copyright abuse to be "pornographic" (re: the Muxtape edit), and, seeking clarification on Wikipedia norms, to have misunderstood talkpage editing in replacing my talkpage with their comment instead of merely adding to it. Thanks for reverting though. Regards, Skomorokh 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Huggle misidentified that IP as having already been given a lv4 warning when he had only actually been given a lv3. User:Gurch made a good application, but it has the occasional tendency to glitch when IP users have been given warnings out of order sometimes. However, I have a hard time believing that he could have accidentally blanked your talk page to post his edit. He was competent enough to edit a different article moments before. If he were to come back to his talk page and clarify, I would release him. Trusilver 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Watson, again

Please look at the talk page for Paul Watson. It is amazing to me that people can say they agree with a proposal in print and then immediately say they have not agreed. If you can resolve this, best of luck to you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand Ms. Sarita's comments about a distinction between agreement on the article vs agreement on the sentences proposed? I thought we are discussing the sentences proposed. I made no other changes to the article but to incorporate what I thought we had an agreement on. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was under the same impression. Trusilver 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Laibach (band)

Sorry to drag MEDCAB into this as it's apparently not the best avenue, and thanks for working on it. The user accounts Zare* and Zare2 received indefinite blocks due to the sockpuppet case, so i'm not sure when/if the person will return to answer your posed question. Perhaps in the short term you could clarify for me whether a band's bio as written by them, or their booking agent, or some other assigned agent, is considered a valid source to be cited, and also what future actions would be more correct in the future should this whole scenario repeat itself for a third run... ? Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Christian Bale#Mediation

I don't understand what you mean here [4] when you say "The manual of style very clearly outlines the treatment of a subject's nationality, and I feel there would need to be a very compelling reason to overturn that". It seems to me you're implying the article should stick with the recent change from the previously stable "Welsh born English" to just "English" because the MoS makes it very clear just "English" is correct. However, the manual of style states "Nationality – 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.)"[5]. This means that normally the MoS would determine Bale be defined as British (assuming he's a British rather than US citizen) but because he's from the United Kingdom and there isn't any consensus on how people from the UK should be defined, this rule doesn't apply. Can you clarify what you meant and why? Ha! (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to have a look at this? Ha! (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A question again

May I ask which one of these [6] [7] is "the official"?` --62.240.88.92 (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Watson again, again

I've posted a counter offer on the Paul Watson talk page to Terrillja's recent offer. I'm giving up most of what I asked for previously. This is my last and final offer. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrillja has been editing Paul Watson but has not responded to my latest offer to resolve the dispute on the talk page there. Does this mean we are done with this effort? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the aircard on my laptop died a few days back and I've been without a connection since then. I will look into this tomorrow when I am more or less back online. Trusilver 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

New developments: maybe we have an agreement. Hard to tell sometimes, but take a look. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy ChildofMidnight's Day!

ChildofMidnight has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as ChildofMidnight's day! For DYKs on the most artery-clogging foods on the planet, enjoy the Star of the day, ChildofMidnight! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

This was posted on my talk page. But I didn't want you to miss a moment of knowing that today is my day, so I've been kind enough to repost the good news here. You're welcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Tru I haven't seen you around much since Wikipedia had a day in my honor. I understand you must be jealous, but I hope all is well otherwise. They say time heals all wounds. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Thehondaboy

Hi Trusilver,

This user has been vandalizing, getting in edit wars, and leaving nasty comments on user talk pages, even mine. He did this to user:Dougweller too. I have him his last warning. Just wanted to let an admin know. thanks, Creez34 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Trusilver, I saw your name on the talk page of the Anna Anderson article and was hoping you could help. The same fanatic, ChatNoir, is terrorizing the article again. Though it's been totally prove Anderson was not Anastasia now, he insists on making it 'fair' to both sides. This, to me, is just as wrong as trying to say both sides won the Civil War. We have a right and a wrong answer. It's not a mystery. I have worked hard for a long time to track down valid sources for my statements on her, showing why she was never for real even before the DNA. I have tried to 'appease' him by adding quotes from those who supported her, but he keeps vandalizing what I put, changing the meaning of my quotes even though I have page number and book, he pokes in giving reasons why it's not verifiable, all the time filling it in with junk snippets marked only "Kurth" or "Rathlef" that certainly cannot be verified. He attacks certain sources of mine as 'liars' while using very questionable things himself- for example he discounts my Robert K. Massie for his Gleb Botkin and Harriet Rathlef (both people who wrote books about AA trying to help her cause in the 20s-30s) Though I thought my version was good, I would be willing to give up ALL quotes if it would make him stop adding insignificant and unproven nonsense by quoting such unknowns as 'Mrs. Grabitch' the ex boarding house owner's ex neighbor, etc. Please help any way you can, thanks.

Regarding this...

...please note User:A Nobody/RfA, where you are invited to participate. Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee!

Thanks Mr. Cabal. Wouldn't know where to turn if not for helpers like you. And if you'd care to learn to read English, I did not write a personal attack. This is in regards the Anna Anderson page, as I'm sure you know.

You guys really, really amuse me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your attention please

Hey Mr. Cabal, did you ever get a gander at the Anna Anderson Anna Anderson talk page after you snootily removed my suggestions? And you lecture me about personal attacks! Well, for example, a personal attack might be me saying to you: Fool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Trusilver, that's the troll who is back on the AA talk page making ridiculous childish insults and accusations. Could you please tell him to stop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 04:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help, Chat is vandalizing and deleting my sourced writings again

Please come back to the most dreaded Anna Anderson article as soon as you can. For awhile Chat was just adding his pro Anna Anderson stuff, but now he's back to vandalizing what I've put and erasing entire passages though they are properly sourced, some by two different sources. He claims my sources are wrong or liars and all he does is sign everything "Harriet Rathelf" or "Peter Kurth" while I have used a wide variety of sources, books, page numbers and authors. I'm afraid just telling him to be nice and follow the rules isn't going to stop him. He is completely obsessed and lives in his own realm of reality where anything that isn't in Peter Kurth's book is a 'lie.' Since we know now AA wasn't Anastasia, we know now who was right and wrong all along. Since Rathelf is the one who went opposite of everyone else who turned out to be right, it's logically to conclude that she was the one who was wrong and/or lying, not the other sources. He is so hung up on this one woman he is completely blind to everything else. He cannot and will not objectively contribute to this article with his current behavoir. I am begging you to warn him to stop deleting and vandalizing, and please ban him if he doesn't stop, though he will only soon return under a new ID with a new IP. At the very least could you temporarily lock the article, or put up a message on its header that there is an edit war going on, or that the article is biased and not to be taken seriously? Please help. I am not going to have access to the computer for the first days of next week and I am afraid of how he's going to destroy it when I'm not there to check up on it. Thank you for any assitance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Excitement

Well well well, you made quite an appearance on my (potential) RfA nom. :) Truth be told if I could keep my collegial friends out of the nastiness it would be my preference to do so. That's one of the reasons I chose to ask Dougstech if he'd nom me. Please don't worry about little old me. I'll either be okay or I won't. :) But I hope you are well Tru, and I appreciate your very kind and generous comments. Stay cool and out of trouble. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bah, you know that I've long since quit caring. Wikipedia ceases to function as it once was. I remember when it was an amazing place, long before it became a hangout spot for power hungry little children who are trying to play king of the hill. Out of the little brain trust you have over there that seems to have taken a dislike to you, the only one that asks the real and relevant question is AllStar. He asked me how I got my mop. I've long since gone beyond the need to preserve my ego by lying about it - I got my mop by being political. I learned how the play the game and I played it, well. I steered away from everything even remotely controversial because I didnt' want it hitting me in the ass come RfA time. I had the perfect pedigree of coaches and nominators standing behind me. I got my mop by the most reliable method there is - the method by which about 95% of the current admins did - I played the game. The unfortunate part of the matter is that the people that should be administrators, the ones that do the right thing and say to hell with the potential backlash later, can't get the mop. Trusilver 07:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

(addressed to Trusilver) - I have been sitting out the RfA, and don't see any need to participate in that until and unless it becomes an active nomination. But two recent comments by you there[8][9] are grossly inappropriate for anyone in any forum, much less an administrator opining about nonadministrators who choose to participate in Wikipedia process. You have made very clear that you support CoM, which is fine. Please confine yourself to that, and tone down the insults and accusations against other editors. I cannot see any good coming of that. You should seriously consider removing or refactoring the comments you have already left. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice WD, I do actually appreciate it. I've had a good time here on Wikipedia, It's been an amazing few years. I think that the wisest person I have ever met to sum up Wikipedia is my daughter (that's not just parental bias, it's the actual truth) She edited with me for a couple months, an amazing thing, I thought, for a girl who was thirteen at the time. Then abruptly, she stopped editing. I asked her if she wanted to work on an article with me, she said no. When I asked why, she said: "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others." It took me a long time to see that she was right. My Wikicareer is down to its last few gasps, I'm no longer afraid to say it like it is. But thank you WD, and may you keep fighting the good fight (and keep telilng people what you think, too.) Trusilver 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the refreshingly kind reaponse. Anyone who's been around here or anywhere long enough knows the potential to misinterpret things when the flaming starts. If people are getting you down why not spend time doing some things that make you happy (if you aren't already)? Wikipedia is still more civil than most other sites on the web. And there are still vast reaches of article space that are underserved: microbreweries, historical monarchs, newly discovered insects, musical performance techniques, historic defunct consumer brands. There are trolls and vandals to fight there, only they stick out and it's a lot easier to tell who the good guys are when it's a subject matter that is not beset by politics or anybody's self-interest. Wikidemon (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One here, one 'there'

• Trusilver, honestly! You people do not have a sense of humor, nor a very thick skin for warranted criticism. I've received your warning about <<personal attacks>>, and, as predicted, you come at me leveling this charge yet again. May I ask in as gentlemanly fashion as possible, what specifically did I write this time that has you so enraged? Are you thinking that somehow you are protecting aggiebean? I am aware that the Anna Anderwson page is entirely her domain, and I have no doubt she's badgered you with her typical exaggerated complaints. And you people knew it was me when I thought I was disguised with only an IP number....All I can say to you Trusilver is that you may do what you will. It's clearly your playground, not mine, and I'm obviously not welcome. This whole Wikipedia ordeal was a barely tolerable diversion for me; most of you people are all the same, cyberautocrats, and I'm fed up being made to feel like a criminal--for what? Speaking my mind? And as is plain, I attack no one. For if I did inadvertently write too bluntly I would certainly apologize... but no, apology is not good enough for you. Attack is assault, it is brutal, it is violent and deplorable. Yet you and others, and I know exactly whom, have decided to target me and label me as an attacker. I have abandoned Wikipedia once already, for its air of stupidity and arrogance, lack of tolerance and its insufferable do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude. Others besides me ought perhaps to amend their behaviour as well. You may on this ocassion take that as a <<personal attack>> all you like!

• RevAntonio (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyberautocrats, that's an absolutely hilarious term that I must save for future use. But that aside, you seem to have this idea that I favor one faction in the Anna Anderson article over another. I do not. If every self-proclaimed expert on Anna Anderson jumped off a bridge tomorrow, I would not feel terribly bad about it.... in fact, I would be willing to provide maps to the nearest one. I couldn't care less about the article, I'm not there to rehab it, I'm there to keep the peace on an article that has had a long-term history of incivility and edit warring. You can make whatever comments you wish. If they are level-headed and helpful to the article, fantastic. If you continue to be abusive and disruptive, then we will go down that road as well. Trusilver 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have indicated, you are absolutely full of it. Perhaps you removed some early remarks that I made for Anna Anderson, thinking I might be a shit-disturber. But now I see what is happening there, and see it is even worse than I at first thought. Lord only knows why I go back to the discussion--perhaps I am of the same mind as aggiebean and the few others who monopolize that page: to see it accurate and not be fought over. As for you, well, it is clearly your pejorative to play G-d, but I'll tell you right now you're no good at it even as a joke.

19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC) This message was delivered semi-automatically by AutoWikiBrowser.

My apologies, I see you are not a coach. Sorry, Genius101^Guestbook 22:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Menu Bar

Hi Trusilver,

I see that some users have menu bars on their main pages, that direct you to a talk page, personal sandbox, exc. I was wondering, how do you do that. Thanks Creez34 (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Creez, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. I have quite a few extra buttons on my menu bar that aren't normally there. Some of them are administrator functions, and some of them involve utilities that I find useful which are running through my monobook.js page. Do you happen to know in particular what it is you are looking for? Trusilver 05:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Query, important....

• Tru, as you know I'm as far from a techno-head as one can get. So, I've noted all activity on my favorite talk pages has ceased since I last commented on them. Is it possible I'm committing a weird error and getting old versions of the pages? I know my ban is lifted, though I plan on following my advice... do let me know. Knowing how busy you are, I am grateful for an answer.
• Nine bows to you. RevAntonio (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you are looking at an old version unless you are intentionally cacheing old pages on your computer. (If you are not aware that you are doing such, it's unlikely you are) If you are in doubt, just click on the history tab and that will tell you for sure whether or not there have been any more recent edits. Trusilver 05:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Some further assistance, please

• Hello. Forgive me for not thanking you for above advice. Having had no chance to prove I've learned my lesson, and having seen your communication to user Lisa about the Noahide page, I'd like to ask something: please, please do not go around communicating to people "the issues" you claim to have about me. Your issues with me are with me alone. I appreciate the way you stood up to Lisa and defended my posts at Noachide. And as I've said, I'm disciplining myself so as not to be accused and kicked off here because I truly believe in Wikipedia. But now, Lisa is going to make sure I keep off the Noahide page for good: she has threatened me with my own past, and has made it clear she'll act on it. That's all I need, another shiner from someone at Wikipedia!
• RevAntonio (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with discussion at Noahidism!

• Trusilver, this user Lisa at the Noahidism page is about ready to give me a nosebleed. I'm trying, through illness and bereavement, to prepare sources for my assertions, as a way of improving that whole scene, and I'm urging you to look at that discussion as it is now, because I know Lisa has been following me about, erasing my comments on Noahidism and the Seven Laws of Noah. I'm asking for your help, because she is cleverly amassing weapons to get me banned and I've done nothing to deserve that again. Lisa has demanded an ultimatum that I giver her proof--that's been done, but it isn't enough for her--or, she says, "leave us alone." Trusilver, THAT IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY HER PAGE and I don't see anyone else complaining about the issues I've raised. You communicated this directly to her already, so she's going to ignore you and keep after me. I won't have it. And I turn to you for assistance in this before it gets bush-whacked by Lisa.
• RevAntonio (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)