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.

Archives

Adoption

Hello! You may not know me, but I noticed your name on the list of potential adopters here. Although I didn't join yesterday, I'm seeking Adoption so that I can have some help understanding WP:MOS and one or two policy sections. I'm reasonably interested in aviation among many other topics also. Anyway, I'm not sure whether you're still around, but if you are, I was wondering if you would be interested in adopting me? Hope to hear from you. :) \ / (⁂) 09:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, sorry I didn't see this earlier. Under most circumstances I would be more than happy to help you out any way I can. (and if you send me messaged, I will still be happy to.) However, as I put on my user page, I'm having a difficult time with Wikipedia right now and tend to disappear for eight or ten days at a time because I'm so unbelievably sick of this place and a large majority of the self-important asshats who reside here. I've reached my saturation point with stupidity and the only way I can continue to have a presence here is by being as detached as possible. Trusilver 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Trusilver! Thanks for your reply. I have since had an offer for adoption, so I'm pretty much set. Sorry to hear of your dissatisfaction with Wikipedia. I guess there comes a point when politics outweighs the reward. No matter how good an organisation is, (Wiki, Gaming Networks, etc), politics and stupidity are inescapable. If you don't like politics, d o n 't v o t e. Maybe focus on article work? I don't have much experience, but surely there is something around here that can still be worthwhile?

On another note, I noticed you're an airline pilot! Must be a lot of ego's around that joint. ;) Is the airline coping with the times? \ / (⁂) 09:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business is slowing down for us just the same as it is for everyone else. As for ego issues, you'd really be surprised. Most of us got all of that out of the way when we were in the service. We tend to be really laid back people, not what most people expect. Trusilver 06:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 1, 2003

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [1]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the review a little bit too late. Don't sweat it all too much and just merge the articles together. The idea of a day by day accounting of current events on Wikipedia is downright stupid and this should have been closed as a merge. Get used to things like this. I've basically lost most of my morale when it comes to Wikipedia because of the travesties that occur both within mainspace and within projectspace. In mainspace you have arrogant asshats who know nothing about what they write scaring away the actual experts who attempt to contribute and then getting away with it due to knowledge of Wiki policies. On projectspace you have general jackasses like Sandstein, who should never have been made administrators to begin with, holding the project hostage with their vague and bureaucracy-ridden agendas. It's been almost a year now since I have been able to have anything except contempt for the project. Trusilver 17:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your exceptionally kind and generous remarks and the barnstar. They are very welcome and much appreciated. Wikipedia is a maze of policies and personalities I'm not sure I understand fully, and there are aspects that cause me great distress, but it's a pleasure to be involved with the many dedicated, passionate and caring people who contribute here. Thanks again. Your gesture was very helpful to me, and I hope I will be as helpful and supportive to others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Just one thing though... don't get burned out. I have seen a whole lot of people (myself included) who started off very strong get burned out within a few months. I got over that burnout and came back after a few months, but a lot don't. Trusilver 19:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less concerned about getting burned out than I am about stepping on the wrong set of toes and getting blocked.

I read some of your userpage and I'm wondering 1) why you choose to handle the more bureaucratic matters if you don't enjoy them and 2) if you follow the politics of the site and where I might be able to discuss and ask questions about these issues without having all kinds of heat brought down on me. In particular I'm concerned about policies and approaches that discourage new users, but I've also stumbled on some of the discussions about the Wizard of Oz type machinations that go on behind the curtain. Sorry to bring up more serious topics after your kind barnstar and generous comments. I hope I'm not proving the axiom that no good deed goes unpunished...ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I am more than happy to talk about anything you want to. The question there isn't whether I'm willing to give you the information you want, the question is more to do with whether or not I give the 'acceptable' answers. I'm probably not the best role model if you are looking for a prosperous Wikicareer. I dislike bureaucracy, as you have already noticed. I feel that there are a large number of editors, admins mostly, who serve no real purpose except to make the system more unwieldy than it already is.

Consider the following two facts: A) Wikipedia claims to be neither a bureaucracy nor governed by statute. and B) Wikipedia has more than 300 pages of policy and guidlines JUST pertaining to WP:MOS. These two facts cannot exist at the same time, in order for one to be true, the other is disproven. In the years that I have been here, I have seen Wikipedia suffer from serious bureaucratic creep. I would love to see this trend reversed. As far as I'm concerned, no policy change or clarification that has been made in the last two years has improved the quality of the encyclopedia one bit. During that time we have filled gigabytes of harddrive space with nothing more than the machinations of people with too much time on their hands.

But as I pointed out - if you have lofty ambitions for your time at Wikipedia. Specifically, if you are looking toward maybe becoming an administrator, then I'm probably not someone you want to emulate. My way of thinking is not one that gets people through RfA :). I also distinguish between people who work primarily in projectspace at legitimate tasks and those that work in projectspace on assinine tasks. Someone who does no article work but spends hours a day cleaning up vandalism is every bit as important to the encyclopedia as someone who writes articles. Someone who spends hours a day dickering over the minutia of WP:MUSIC or WP:RFA is a thoroughly useless contributor and we would be better off without them.

To that end, I am a strong supporter of many, many of Wikipedia's persona non grata like Giano and SlimVirgin, and I consider ArbCom to be the pinnacle of uselessness. Now obviously, we need to be able to maintain the infrastructure necessary to make the encyclopedia function. But I think that's ALL we should do, not forgetting that the project is the reason we are here, not perpetuating the bureaucracy surrounding the project. Trusilver 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your candid response. I agree. Indeed I have stumbled on Giano's user page and he is a Wikipedia SuperHero. Of course there are many others. I wrote an article of sorts that I'd be interested for you to read some time... but maybe I'll wait until after the holidays. There are certainly a lot of frustrated people, and I think that's unfortunate. The writing and collaboration that go on here are amazing, and the resource that's been built is pretty awesome. I feel like a piddler when I see the work some of the better contributors put out. And this is a fantastic resource and a great place to write and learn, so I'm very thankful for the opportunities offered me here, even as I recognize how much of the other "stuff" one has to wade through. You didn't answer, I don't think, about why you mess with the bureaucratic part if it's frustrating? Trying to fix things for the better? Well, Happy Holidays and Thanks again for your generosity and kindness. And Happy Thanksgiving wherever you are, even if you don't celebrate gluttony as we Yanks do, but judging from your user page I'm guessing you're "one of us" :). Gobble gobble gobble.ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you do with this Places you must see in Malaysia article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and aside from a subjective suggestion on what would be a good place to see while you are there, it doesn't assert notability. Trusilver 04:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of the "List of" controversies? Here's one I came across doing new page patrol: List of massacres in Peru. And can you do me one other favor and check out this article Glamour (charm) and the disambiguation page Glamour (disambiguation). It passed an AfD, but the editor who created it keeps trying to put it in the disambig according to an old definition given by the one source for the article, a speech. I guess I should just leave it alone, but it seems misleading without making it clear that this is one person's take. ~~And then if you want more, there was Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit, but I tagged it as a hoax, so hopefully it will get looked into?~~ I'm just trying to see if I'm approaching these articles right. Thanks for your help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm funny like that. I like the description on the disambiguation page to actually match the article rather than saying something completely different. I don't know why, perhaps it's called being accurate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Glamour (presentation) goes. It's a garbage article that is filled with subjective nonsense that makes the entire project look bad. That being said, the AfD discussion ended in no consensus and as such it remains. Disambiguation pages are not meant to provide definitions on the word, but rather to help differentiate between multiple uses of the same word or name. As such, it is more appropriate to list the name of the article rather than a redirect for the article. Trusilver 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, whatever, it is a stub, and quite a new one. And I don't think it makes the wikipedia look worse than what was there, namely, having a definition that said that glamour was a magazine which at the time was the article, or failing that according to the disamb page at the time purely and simply 'beauty' [2] which evidently isn't quite right either; or a red-linked magic spell, or a bunch of pop culture stuff, so I am unrepentant.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the problem I'm having is: one of the uses the word glamour has is as a word with a certain definition. But now there is that article and a description of glamour based on a different definition, and it has replaced the accurate definition that used to be on the disambiguation page. It seems weird that an encyclopedia would give a misleading idea of what a word or concept means. Can you clarify what you mean by "listing the name of the article rather than a redirect"? I'm a little confused. I hope everything is well with you and that you had a good Thanksgiving. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Any comment on the List of massacres? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that it is appropriate to put the actual name of the article which in this case is Glamour (presentation) as the link on the disambiguation page rather than Glamour (charm) which is a redirect to the actual article. As for "list of" articles... I dislike them. They are difficult to maintain at best and NEVER complete unless it is something stupid like List of wikis about St. Louis, Missouri (the article existed at one time...seriously). At worst, they are so general that they are a total nightmare to keep maintained. But, they have a tendency to pass AfD discussions, so we are stuck with them.Trusilver 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge admin needed

Hi, we have a move debate at talk:David Irving that is currently 6 nil unless we count the proposer who has yet to sign or give a reason. As the debate is moving to accusations of electron wastage, how extreme does it have to get before snow can be decreed? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the article and the talk page and closed the discussion. Every time I think I have seen someone push the envelope of WP:NCR violating, someone always proves to me that they can be even more gratuitous about it. Trusilver 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trusilver, thou art a true Rouge admin, that one could have bubbled over for days. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck with the article and let me know if you need anything else. Trusilver 03:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the buttocks - here comes the beer

Have an unyielding beer on me.

Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion.

This is an acknowledgment of your participation in the RfA of: SilkTork *^YES!. 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

didn't mean to beat the horsey

Hi Trusilver,

I am sorry, i did not want to beat a dead horse i made my comment at Guido's talk a minute before you declined, when i had seen that first i would not have commented. I wanted to give diffs bc people were asking the blocking admin and i did not see them. sorry, RetroS1mone talk 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no, don't worry about it. I just didn't want to see this turn into an unnecessary circus. As far as I'm concerned when it comes to blocks... He's blocked now, he will be back in somewhere to the tune of 20 hours and hopefully everyone can come to terms with the issues of the article. Though what I would really suggest you all do is take the dispute to the next level. I don't think a third (or fourth, or fifth, or sixth) opinion is going to do you any good at this point. I would suggest you all consider taking this to the Mediation Cabal. I would quite happily mediate the dispute if Guido doesn't think that I have become biased because of denying his unblock request. Even if that's the case, there are plenty of other members who would be happy to help. At the very least, it would show that all avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted should this move up the ladder to the next level. Trusilver 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! When some times i get frustrated on WP, an admin like you puts my faith back. RetroS1mone talk 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck. Trusilver 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of medcabal cases linger and die like a woodchuck under a porch, but that doesn't mean this one'll be such a woodchucker. Keep hope alive! That being said, it's very often Guido against multiple, almost always all other editors on the page, while beating a dead horse so hard, sometimes it causes subatomic fusion. If you'd like, I can provide the three or four extensive talk page discussions on whether ME is a synonym for CFS. You may want to talk to User:Carcharoth for his opinion on the matter, as he tried to negotiate on the CFS pages for a while (I don't know how much success he had, at the time my attention was elsewhere). Right now I would say that Guido is the sole editor that sees problems on the page, and in many cases his arguments have been dealt with repeatedly in the past and consensus achieved, to the great aggravation of many contributors. But I'm not exactly a disinterested party, so don't take my word for it. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Trusilver, may I direct your interest to User_talk:RetroS1mone#GDB.27s_talk_page? Generally, posting stuff on GDB's talk page while he's blocked accomplishes little but feed the drama. This dead horse has been beaten, I own a special stick for this purpose. But even I, Beater of Dead Horses, have given up. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am starting to see that. Long ago I learned that it is impossible to argue rationally with someone who is irrational. Occasionally I forget that and need to be reminded of it. This little exercise has accomplished that beautifully. My way of dealing with people like this in the past has been the moderately effective method of just letting them behave like jackasses until they finally work themselves up to a block long enough for me to forget they exist for a little while. Trusilver 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed a permablock hasn't happened yet - it's a tribute to the tolerance of the community and willingness of the involved admins to keep hope alive. I'm tempted to throw it at Jimbo and see what happens - somewhere I read him saying something like "whenever I look into someone posting on my talk page about admin abuse, I'm always amazed they weren't blocked earlier". You really want an entertaining read, slog through the history of GDB's talk page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading the entire archive of his talk page on a diff by diff level. And all I can say is.... holy crap. If I were him, I would think of a 24 hour block as a gift. Knowing what I know now, I would have dropped a 3 month block on him. I can only see a handful of positive contributions he has made to the project, and a mountain of negative ones. Trusilver 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a great way to spend a Tuesday? Readers who only peruse mainspace are missing out on such vast swaths of ~~comedy~~ ~~tragedy~~ entertainment gold. The block expires soon, I'm interested to see what the outcome will be. Now, is this case a testimony to the tolerance of the community, or an example of process gone wrong? A question for the philosophers. I'm basically waiting for him to run out of admins - they seem to be less and less willing to intervene; the result could either be absolute freedom to run rampant on wikipedia, or a permablock. I should start a betting pool. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you keep moving to different venues to exclude me? :) Anyway, your (Trusilver's) recent edit to ANI describes GDB as a net positive, which I think is a typo. Actually, the problem is it's ambiguous :) Verbal chat 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit! How do you keep finding me! :) Ah yes, I read back over that and I'm just going to call it one of those "Was I high when I typed that??" moments. I corrected it. Trusilver 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

Thanks a lot for your appreciation!! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, thank you for your hard work. Trusilver 17:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from me, too. Chergles (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

I can clearly see that these edits have been made from the same address, however, not all of them have been made by me. This address is not used only by me. I am not a sockpuppet, never was and never will be, although I do understand your suspicions. Thanks. --Balloholic (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cody macdonald

I'm not sure that this was vandalism - the guy seems to exist - [3] Kevin (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. I should have CSD'd it under A1 instead of G3. Even if he does exist, it is an unsourced one-sentence article that lacks any real context. I won't have any problem with it should it be rewritten properly. Trusilver 00:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hi Trusilver,

The ANI thread on Guido has been archived. I was content to let it go since it looked like he was voluntarily leaving wiki and the issue was dead. Apparently I was wrong. I'm now calling bullshit, fuckit, and thatsit. Would you assist in the careful drafting of a new ANI thread that explicitly calls for a topic ban, if not outright block, on the basis of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:POVPUSH, WP:TE, WP:DE and WP:NOT? For more context, see GDB's talk page, my talk page and David Ruben's talk page. I'm planning to start a draft at User talk:WLU/RFC#ANI posting. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I only have half an hour or so right now and then I am headed to Cincinnati and back. I will be able to check in on it and add my input later on this evening. Trusilver 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm not in a hurry, I'd rather it be clear and pretty much inarguable than fast - many ANI discussions that I've been involved in have gone nowhere because there's too much back and forth and not enough proof. An easy-to-read package is more important than an express post. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that de facto it has begun. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Dear Trusilver, hope you're doing great! Slowly I have become more and more inactive in Wikipedia. But I always know that I'll be back cause I love you guys so much :D . Happy New Year to you. Regards --Tarif from Bangladesh (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tarif! Just the other day I was wondering where you have been lately. It's good to see that you are doing well. Happy New Year! Trusilver 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kink.com

RFC might be more fruitful if you specified exactly which section you were referring to in the request.Horrorshowj (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my comment relied on the assumption that the reader has the capability of looking at the subheading I was commenting to. I can't spend my whole day pandering for the least common denominator of human intelligence. I have to make the assumption that if I am commenting in the section about the Kayden Faye assault, then the reader probably has the cognitive ability to reach the assumption that I'm probably referring to the article additions concerning the Kayden Faye assault. Trusilver 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I'll make you a deal

You publish your "unpublished list of the top editors on the project who actually have a clue" and I'll try a bit harder to ignore the useless people. And to not go overseas for a month without telling anyone. Giggy (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find your terms acceptable. :) Trusilver 15:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Edit: Chernobyl

So, the word 'No' constitutes vandalism in your book??

It's vandalism when it is unproductive and little more than a random word thrown into a page. Next time try elaborating on what you are talking about with something more than a one word sentence. I'm sure that you could probably manage at least three. Also you see those squiggly things on your keyboard? yep... that button right below the escape key. Add four of those at the end of each edit. It will create something similar to this -----> Trusilver 11:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the IP's edits

do you think we ought just mass-revert all the edits? some may be worthwhile. if you think they should all be nuked, i have a script that can mass-rv. see also Wikipedia:AN/I#IP_running_unapproved_bot–xeno (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through them and it seemed that whatever script that bot was running went a little haywire at a certain point and started to throw around incorrect links. But the early ones that it made seem to be correct. I have picked through them and rolled back the ones that were wrong. In the few situations that I wasn't completely sure, I erred on the side of reverting. Trusilver 05:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, nice work. –xeno (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlassFamily

I've posted a question on his user talk page, regarding your decision to unblock him, even though, to my knowledge, he has made no comment about his shoddy understanding of fair use policy, or the disruption it has caused. — Realist² 22:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

block of User:68.220.175.168

I understand your doubt about this, this user is very odd and deliberately tries to confuse others with their inconsistency, but I can assure you it is User:Bambifan101. Asking for foreign language links to be added to children's film pages, messing around with other people's talk archives, and "yelling" in edit summaries are just a few of his telltale hallmarks. User:Tanthalas39 and User:Collectonian both have lots of experience in this area and can verify this information. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still going over this user's contributions as well as User:Bambifan101's and all known sockpuppets. I will be finished up shortly. Trusilver 04:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the edits of this user are consistent with the editing pattern of Bambifan and his/her/its known socks. I would have just blocked right now except someone else beat me to it. Trusilver 04:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the quick revert on my userpage and block of the vandal. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Trusilver 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

simply south

as far as i'm concerned he's a dick and has been going out of his way to stop me getting my point across... so my edits were justified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.63.128 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more disruptive edit and you won't have to worry about it anymore. You are one more vandalism away from a block. Trusilver 22:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting user names

You have to admit, Ed Fitzgerald and his collection of public usernames is pretty creepy. Why would someone do that. 71.178.197.11 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, why do my edits keep getting reverted by Ed. I am trying to add citation tags and remove unsourced material. He goes through my history and reverts most everything. I really don't get it. Now he is threatening me. Maybe you can help.71.178.197.11 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]