Archives

2007,2008

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

You can't possibly know that what I said about Hotdogs isn't true. I could be an expert on The Dogs.

Please stop removing peoples edits to wiki pages and stick to verifying facts, your judgement has no place on Wikipedia. Looking through your user talk page, it seems like a common issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.16.224 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my edit to the "criticisms" section, there is numerous published material to support the accusation of political bias in BBC reporting, just last week Iain Duncan Smith launched a broadside at the BBC over it's reporting of benefit reforms. The Criticism is widely held and as such is valid comment.

Thank you for removing the vandalism I put up on Georgia's page. I love Wikipedia's ethics, but I really do not like Georgia. Bring the Rams back to LA. Georgia Frontiere = the fullest potential that a hooker can achieve. (at least this message may live on here on Mr. Trueman's page)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Even though you have so many already... For beating me to the revert button so many times you deserve another! Harland1 (t/c) 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil I'm sorry if this is vandalizing your page, but I am new to wikipedia so i do not know how to send a message to you. Since you apparently control the anti vandalizing in Wikipedia how come it is not a credible source for school work and projects?

OMGZORS ! all i were doing were editin the artycul aboot voadphonez hows darr you Change it yOU are annoying!!!!!111!!!!one !111!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomyeomans222 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [1], #26. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my constructive post on mobile museums? I find this offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.182.165 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reversion, I have tried to edit out the offensive material only to get it undone as you can see - How can I ensure that this sort of thing doesn't keep happening?

Sorry, mans. Writing a god damn paper. I made those IAC page vandalism changes. Just cant anymore. Been up so long. Needed to screw off. Was gonna change it back but 'aye, you did it for me. Thanks. - IAC-Chairsman (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your anti-vandalism efforts are appreciated Philip, on several occasions you've caught incidents on articles on my watchlist before I did. Kudos! Oberiko (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going behind me and cleaning up my first wiki edit made to Cave Without a Name. It looks alot better now! Also, I have some pics of the cave that I'd like to add to the page but can't seem to do it. Think you might be able to help? -Peggy Hollin (peggyhollin@hotmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.54.46 (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of my John Michell edit was mistaken. The information is accurate and relevant, and does not constitute vandalism. Please go to the Discussion page if you wish to raise any issues, preferably after checking out the information. Thanks.

I am extremely sorry for the mistake, I must have warned you by mistake, I will try not to do that again. 2nd of all, I did not know that is was a mistake to warn people if I was not the one to report. Thank you for the advice, and once again sorry Thank you  StrongBad  (talk)  02:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are what would be locally known as 'the boy', from as far west as Clontibret to as far east as Dundalk, you are known as 'the boy'. People worship the ground you walk on because you are 'the boy'. And when I think about you, I touch myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFE1 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip, I changed the deletion rationale on the STY Creidne article from spam to a copyvio, which unfortunately it is. I do admit that it read as a promotional article, but technically the ship is an Irish Naval vessel which was used for sail training in the Naval Service and has been loaned recently (and in the 70s) as the National Sail Training Vessel. The copyvio is from the website of the organizers of that programme, but as they are essentially a committee tasked by a government department to run the programme, it isn't quite a commercial entitiy.

The Creidne is currently replacing the Asgard II, which, let's say, had an unfortunate accident in the Bay of Biscay. I'll explain to the author about copyright problems, although it looks like a good-faith but misguided contributor. The ship itself might be notable, but the article at the moment is unambigiously is a copyvio. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for telling me... I've noticed that the new versions of Huggle do that a lot for some reason... It's as if it doesn't know not to revert whitelisted users sometimes... I never had this problem with the lite version, but that hasn't been updated yet so I can't use it... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 12:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, don't let me vandalize the Sitka page with my winning, I didn't want to anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightsock (talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh*... Indeed it is becoming annoying... This is an apparent bug in Huggle... It's been forced to use the API Queries ever since the update to the IRC Recent Changes feed borked how it reads the feed... Since API is so slow, Huggle sometimes does not know that someone else has reverted the edit, and so it does it anyways, inadvertantly reverting the reverting user... See here as well... In any case, I'm sorry for any inconvenience this causes you. I have no idea why Huggle has only seemed to get this problem when you have reverted an IP... UntilItSleeps ^{Public PC} 14:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. WuhWuzDat 14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please have a look at the Hindu meditation section of the Meditation article. There is a clique of editors there who seem to be running the ideological line that Hindu meditation began with the Buddha and that Adi Shankara has nothing significant to do with Hindu meditation. Both of these would be distressing ideas to Hindus but there seems to be no way to get past this cabal.Fauncet (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

WuhWuzDat 16:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting attempts to remove bias from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.100.212 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that wikipedia is meant to be a neutral source, not a source for propaganda from one side or another in a conflict. If this bothers you, please stop reverting constructive changes that attempt to establish a neutral POV

Saw your reverts, working on the fix right now... audiodude (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey by the way, I was actually very impressed on how you 'ninja' reverted me before I could even revert myself! I'm an experienced web application developer, so if you need any help with anti-vandalism bots, please let me know! I assume you caught me because of the BLALHA DG HAG BLAG header, which I put in intentionally for this purpose: if it got in the article, I had forgotten to remove my edit section and it would be obvious to anyone to revert it. audiodude (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're trying to be a good little wikipedo and revert supposed vandalism, but pointing out an article was plagarized (and including the source article) isn't vandalism, its trying to bring academic honesty. Think about that the next time you autorevert things trying to be a big and bad wannabe mod . 165.154.46.149 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit [2] by you. If you think that's a model of how to point out that the article is plagiarised, think again. If you want to do it properly you might want to investigate the ((copyvio)) template. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this revert, as it looked like vandalism. I see your point, and will be more careful in the future.

Ojay123 (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted some edits to Gideon v. Wainwright by 168.8.238.50 (talk). Thank you for that! I would like to point out that this anonymous editor had made other similar vandalism edits to this article previously and seems persistent. S/he has ignored the gentle ((uw-vandalism1)) templates that have been placed on his/her Talk page. Thus, I elevated the warning status — given his/her at least eight vandalism edits to this article — to ((uw-vandalism3)). I think that his/her next warning should, therefore, be either ((uw-vandalism4)) or ((uw-vandalism4im)). This is all the more apparent when one looks at his/her contributions. Would you agree with this assessment and recommendation? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd escalate to ((uw-vandalism4)) only if the next one is recent, and to ((uw-vandalism4im)) only if it's really serious (as opposed to persistent). If there's nothing before next month and then it's only mild, I'd go back to level 2 - with an IP there's no certainty it's the same individual - let's not WP:BITE. But ultimately these things come down to judgement and there's not necessarily only one right answer. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raise good points that I will endeavor to remember. To a certain degree, I am still a tyro at this. However, with this particular IP, there are no edits that are not vandalism. Or, at least, I cannot find any. This IP has been blocked repeatedly. I am not entirely certain that dealing with such an IP agressively — vis-à-vis vandalism and subsequent blocking as punishment — amounts to WP:BITE. (Although I take the advice regarding WP:BITE to heart and thank you for it!) Why has this IP address not been indefinitely blocked given its almost always vandalism contributions and its heretofore blocking history? — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not usual to block IP addresses indefinitely - see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#IP_address_blocks. The usual practice, in the case of a school (which this probably is), is to increase the block lengths up to a maximum of one year, reinstating them each year if subsequent contributions are only vandalism, and to use soft blocks (i.e. not to disrupt registered users logging in on that IP address). I'll keep the article on my watchlist, and check the IP's contributions occasionally, but it looks to me like whoever it was has got bored and gone to do something else. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so! This has been very informative. Each of your responses has taught me something new. Thank you very much! — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done It seems someone else has beaten us to the punch. The IP address in question has been given a “soft block,” as you discussed above. Thanks again for the discussion. You’ve taught me a lot! — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You have new messages at Manishearth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 15:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For beating me so many times to the scooping of "poo" that is cleaning up vandalism. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a ((Talkback)) message on my talk page. @ 19:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I honestly have no idea how that happened, I swear I didn't actually do that to the article, that doesn't bode well for me, to have my IP address running rampant vandalizing schools I have no idea even existed.

I feel bad about it :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.23.65 (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've noticed you took care of recent vandalism in the Gaza War article. Now there is a case with Gilad Shalit, which was simply deleted. There is of course no problem to restore it, but I thought some extra help from an expert on this issues is desired. Can you pls take care of necessary arrangements in such incidents? Thank u. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my revert, I am not sure why. Sections had been blanked and the costs of the war changed. I was just repairing it or am I missing something?--Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was undoing and then undoing then comparing the last stable version and correcting problems/errors. I was saving the edit when I had edit conflict. It took me a few minutes. If I had rollback I would have just done that. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that was not added by me look at [3]

You made the edit I referred to - no-one else - and it looked like vandalism to me. What you did was to reverse the deletion of a bad section that had become bad through previous vandalism by someone else again, but I don't see that that makes yours a good edit. The fact that an edit blanks a section does not make it a bad edit; the fact that an edit reverses the blanking of a section does not make it a good edit. I've reverted the article back to the last good version I can see, but if you can see some vandalism remaining, please remove it. I don't see that rollback would have helped here - popups is better, and that's available to you. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave vandal patrol to other people in future. As I said, I was trying to repair the vandalism. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC) This page Five themes of geography has been through some rough times recently. You may be able to check it makes sense, I can't work it out. I noticed in that you had fixed it before.[4][reply]

.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Philip Trueman - I've just reverted the revert you did to my revert over at Brown Bear. You entered in there while I was undoing the second of two vandal edits. --Technopat (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Why not apply for rollback? Philip Trueman (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I s'pose it means downloading something, however small, & the PC I'm working out of is at the very limit of its capacity... Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It just means you get some extra links showing on certain pages. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks - I'll check it out. I'd been meaning to get round to it when I get round to getting a new PC, but the thought of going through all that hassle again is a real put-off! Wish me luck! --Technopat (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr. Trueman for fixing the vandalism to George Clooney. I had reverted the vandalism of two other anons and was having trouble reverting the third’s handiwork. I was in the process of removing his witticisms manually when I discovered that you had already done it with Popups. Thanks! Oh, by the way, I took the liberty of placing the warnings on the little vandal’s anonymous talk page, even though you did the work: one for misuse of edit summary (((uw-wrongsummary))) — he lied, the little b*st*rd — and one for vandalism. Thanks again! — Spike (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you wouldn’t mind, could I ask you for a quick primer on using Popups for reverting vandalism? I read the documention at WP:POPUPS and it’s rather thin on the matter. I currently use Huggle, Rollback, Undo, or manually edit it out as a last resort. Thanks! — Spike (talk)

Please - call me Philip. Rollback does not work if you need to revert the work of more than one editor, and Undo is slow because you need to do as many Undos as there are bad edits. What I tend to do in those cases is to bring up the article history, and then mouse-over the 'diff' links, looking at the differences popups shows me, until I find an editor whose last edit was constructive. Then I click on the 'rv' link in the popups menu, which replaces the whole article with that version. Clear now? Philip Trueman (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very! The only problem is having to deal with the annoyance that is Popups when one is not doing RCP. Thanks Philip for the explanation! —  SpikeToronto  17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did it! I used popups to revert a heavily vandalized article back to the last clean version I could find. Thank you Philip so much for explaining it to me! —  SpikeToronto  20:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that User_talk:Over9001otters is the same person as [5]? Imaginative name change! --Alchemist Jack (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 20:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

—Ed (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
Thanks for your comments: I've moved the discussion, and replied here. Swanny18 (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You edited this article. This is a friendly notice that your input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of overweight actors in United States cinema. This information is provided without any request that you support or oppose the deletion of the article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I comment on this? Fatties need love too! 92.9.167.189 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Trueman, I had stated the right facts of the form teacher in Clementi Primary School page on WIKIPEDIA.COM... Pls dont just delete and block me! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imtalkingthetruth (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting and reverting the vandalism on my user page ;-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha You beat me to reverting the vandalism on Battle of Berlin well done. I gave them a stronger warning though i think enough is enough. ZooPro (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there I noticed that you recently updated a section of Cannock Chase and was wondering whether you are local to that area? The reason I ask is that I need some help regarding some information on Cannock and would like to speak to someone who lives around here to help verefiy a point I am trying to make on the Cannock wiki page. Hope you can help?Aprhys (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the mal-edits made to Tech Valley High School by 163.153.221.61. Talking to the school district that uses this IP, they were not able to track the use back to a specific student. They will reported that they will be more vigilant and will work to avoid a reoccurrance. --NERIC-Security (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rectify that document because of changing chart. But some reason, that was rejected. If you think that I vandalize document? If you think, you are wrong. Thank You.

p.s. I'm Korean. So I'm not good at English Wikipedia. You should recognize that.--Alpstiger0 (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the phrase "dumb ass" to describe someone is not rectification of anything - it is vandalism. And not being good at English is no excuse either - I suggest you read WP:COMPETENCE. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my edit on Bruce Buschel. I somehow read the diffs backwards and accidentally restored vandalism when I thought I was reverting it. How embarrassing! Thanks for noticing and fixing it. —Caesura^(t) 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on somebody putting "mama" Luigi on that article. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. I see alot of anti vandalism edits, but little warning, consider looking at WP:WARN for information on warning vandals, thanks, Frozen4322 : Chat 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent suggestion about a possible rescue, instead of an afd, for an Indian Christian official. Do you do much with Indian Christianity? We could use some help there. If not. maybe you could suggest someone else that is similarly reputable, thoughtful, unbiased and determined?  :) 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

lol ur noob let people have there fun nubcake, olololol i am a roflcopter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.100 (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC) hey whats up this is awsesome i had to do this site thing because it was homework!!!!!! ahaah:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.17.59 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting it back! Of course I did not mean that :) Kembangraps (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the casual reader: This is (almost all of) a discussion between myself and User:Salalah4life which was originally on his user talk page and which he has deleted from his and placed on mine. It contains a warning, from me to him. Deletion of that warning from his user talk page by him is, by current practice, prima facie evidence that he has read it. The discussion is preserved here for future reference, should it be needed. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Baruch Goldstein appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Please read WP:TERRORIST. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. May I quote directly from WP:TERRORIST: "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.". Your edit did not follow that guideline. As I'm sure you know, the standard on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. Whether or not Baruch Goldstein was a terrorist is irrelevant; what matters is that you did not provide a citation of a verifiable source. This is the fundamental difference between your edit and the use of the word "terrorist" on the Osama bin Laden page. Please read that page again and tell me where the word is used without a citation to back it up. Even if you can find one, that does not make your edit right, it only makes the Osama bin Laden page wrong.

I think it would be helpful if you accepted that you made a mistake, and that you have not understood the guideline. If you do not, then I will have to assume that you believe you should be free to ignore the guideline when it doesn't suit you. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have most defiantly understood the guideline, as you can see the Osama bin Laden page is locked, therefore vandalism is not featured on the page, so how was the word "terrorist" displayed 10 times on the page...hmm, cuz no one follows this rule, and it is a rediculous rule to an extent, if an organization is blatenly terrorist (such as the Jewish Defense League) then they should be branded as terrorist, because there idea of the Arab-Israeli conflict is to kill every Palestinian in site, literally!--Salalah4life (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'terrorist' is on that page because it is backed up by citations from reliable sources. Please understand - all you have to do is find such a reliable source for your claim about the JDL, or Goldstein, or whatever. The article on Goldstein is littered with citations already. All you have to do is to ensure that any changes you make are supported in the same way.

As I'm sure you realise, there have been many editing disputes around articles involving Israel and Palestine. If you haven't done so already, may I suggest that you read this, and especially this, which starts: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length ...". Well, you've been warned. I'm quite sure that you have the knowledge and the desire and the energy to contribute positively to Wikipedia, but please do so within the rules. Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was actually just reading that page when the vandalism occurred. I was surprised that there was so little on a DYK article and so I refreshed and was slapped in the face with the last bit. I should have just let it stay there for a minute, knowing someone like you would be along to clean it up in a moment, but it was a gut instinct to get rid of it...and that was the only way I saw to do it. I'll look into more efficient ways so I'm ready next time...

Thanks, Sabiona (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that vandal on my talk page, mate. You got there faster than I did, which is quite impressive. Rgoodermote  20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this comment is mis-addressed? You must mean User:Lord of the Pit. Philip Trueman (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, that is who I meant. Sorry about that, must have opened you in another tab by accident and never noticed the difference. Rgoodermote  03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the accidental revert and warning. You beat me to the revert, and I went to revert a second or so after you reverted. Again, my apologies. --Meaghan ^{the vanilla twilight} 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.

WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.

Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but on

ly as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."

However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated. I am not stressing weather you should oppose/support either of these.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16[reply]

I hope you don't mind :) A8UDI 12:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Awarded to Philip Trueman for his tireless and endless work on the laborious task of reverting the vandalism of Wikipedia articles. Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My bad; a typo. Should read OK now. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You have new messages at Suffusion of Yellow's talk page.
Message added 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip Trueman! Malvern College is an article you have edited or contributed to concerns an important school. It still needs some urgent attention. If you can help, please see Talk:Malvern College#Lead Section regarding how it may be improved. --Kudpung (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Regions of Asia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regions of Asia. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I have re-reverted it now. I am pretty new to Huggle, and looking at the edit summary I think that I was trying to undo the vandalism, but ended up undoing part of the vandalism and your undo. I am very sorry that this happened, and I will be sure to not make this mistake again. Thanks for pointing it out! Ajraddatz (Talk - Contributions) 18:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip, Over at WT:WPO, we've been discussing defensive measures against the current splurge of deleting unreferenced BLPs. This struck me as a wikignome sort of job and I can remember that you classify yourself in that way. Are you interested in referencing opera singer bios most of which used the external links at the end of the article as sources?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Philip. Sorry to hear that life is making a lot of demands on you at present. I hope that things calm down before long.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following subcategory of the Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts has been proposed for deletion: Category:People from 18th-century Boston, Massachusetts. A link to the discussion is provided at the top of the subcategory page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my recent changes, I am in a public computer room and i left my computer unattended whilst i got a cup of tea and found that somebody had been on my account —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom982 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Philip Trueman,

The article Adriano Espaillat has been VANDALIZED and PAGE BLANKED several times over the past 24 hours.

The version which you restored was PAGE BLANKED within a matter of minutes.

Some protection for this page may be appropriate.

Thank you,

69.203.119.66 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have gone quiet. If it happens again, I suggest you take it to WP:RFPP. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes i know I contribute only (I'm Nunzia), Mery doesn't use this account, she uses "Merythebest" I have to edit my user page. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzιαтιηα׺°”˜`”°º× 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you contributed to the article Feynman point, I'm asking you to respond to this question. Thank you. --bender235 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for that, I made a mistake and I am sorry --Clarince63 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you just reverted my own reversion. My reversion removed some vandalism which is obvious if you actually read that article. I made a mess of it at first so it might look a bit confusing (forgot how to revert duh). I assume your reversion was in error and not vandalism as your profile indicates that you are a serious user so I wont contact wiki. But could you please fix the article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.4.184 (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I've done what I can to clean things up. I hit the 'revert' button because this edit [6] by you showed up in my anti-vandalism tool, and I stand by that decision - see the non-English about line 40 in the wikitext of your version. I can see now what you were trying to do, but please read WP:OWNFEET. If you want to undo several vandalism edits, and you don't have access to the more sophisticated tools, it's usually best to find the last good version, and edit and save that. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...a spot. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might be completely mistaken, but I believe that you might have unwittingly, this edit, placed some vandalism back on the page while trying to do the opposite by making that revert. I fixed it, but when you revert vandalism, if you can view the changes to check to make sure that everything is correct before you save, which I'm sure you do anyway, then this probably won't happen. I don't mean to sound condescending or anything, quite the opposite, so I'm sorry if I sound like I am. I might also have the link wrong. I haven't tried to do something like that before so I kind of guessed on how to do it. I might also be completely wrong about you making that mistake. If I am wrong, then I greatly apologize for bothering you. If you can check, that'd be great. Thanks, WM2 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I made was this [7], which I hope we can agree reverted vandalism. There was a previous edit, this one [8], eight edits and over a month earlier, which added the vandalism you refer to. So I think we're both right. I think it's a counsel of perfection to say that everything should be right when you save an edit - the purpose of edits is to improve Wikipedia, not to make it perfect. Provided that every edit improves Wikipedia (see WP:OWNFEET), then I think that's good enough. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's nice to see that it is possible to have a constructive conversation with someone on the Internet. I've had quite a few problems with people who prefer threats and cussing over civil arguments. Thanks, WM2 01:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... didn't revert that one far enough! Anaxial (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that I am not the first to notice your great anti vandal work, and I'd like to add at thanks to your recent catch at architectural sculpture, an article, tho not one of my best, is, none-the-less near and dear to my heart. My computer is in a coma and I can best check in at wikipedia while at KLDK, a grat place to visit, but I can't live here. einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have tried to insert a logo of Matra company in Matra article but I do not know how to insert pictures into wiki articles. Could you help me and make article about Matra better ? Thank you. The logo may comes from web pages: http://auta5p.eu/katalog/matra/matra.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.240.88 (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That anon IP appears to be a vandalism only account. It performed four edits this morning and all are vandalism related. --Morenooso (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I won't add alt text to any of the Harry Potter articles. Perhaps you can do it yourself. The directions are at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, plus some common sense and experience. You can also consult with User:Graham87 for tips on what visually disabled readers want to know about images. Kindest regards, Tuxedo junction (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For beating me! :) Kayau Voting IS evil 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThankYou for removing vandalism from Baitul Futuh. :) Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism patrollers are underappreciated. We're small but prolific group that mean a tremendous amount to this project. Thank you for your contributions... which dwarf mine and most of the rest of us. Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I've tidied up a few of your reversion as some of them reverted back to an already vandalised page. Keep up the good work! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that :) you beat me to finding the clean revision :) James (T|C) 11:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you are an awesome counter-vandal who is extremely fast and active in RC patrolling (Huggle I guess?). I'd like to give you this to put on your talk page. It's an unofficial project of mine. More templates can be found at User: Deagle_AP/Fire Team Alpha. Deagle_AP (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! No, I don't use Huggle - see User:Philip Trueman/PILT. Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, awesome work there. Yeah, Huggle for me is not as reliable as Lupin, but it's also interesting to see that new tools are being developed. Deagle_AP (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you've not noticed, http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/2010/ David Underdown (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the last edit to the Large Hadron ColliderMy76Strat (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was fast asleep when that was made. Looks like some other IP has reverted it. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if such an error should be reverted or simply corrected or if it even makes a difference. Thanks anywayMy76Strat (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article D-Link G604T Network Adaptor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no verifiability, its all original research and its not a notable product. Find at least one neutral review, or really this article should go.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jez t e C 19:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits from the IP user to the New Zealand pavilion at Expo 2010 are well-referenced and should not have been reverted. No damage done, s/he's restored them and is continuing to add useful and referenced content. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again. The edit I reverted included a change from "World Expo" to "expoo". That's vandalism. Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, I make typos & misspell words all of the time. I've come to consider it a simple way to determine if anyone reads the articles I work on. -- llywrch (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any alterations to "Karate" article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.89.28 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In India "Lingam" is called as Male sex organ. Even in Indian languages like Sanskrit, Malayalam, and Tamil the word directly conveys the meaning of male sex organ. If one has keen look in it he can easily identify the depiction of sex. Why are you reverting? Also please refer to Carved wooden lingam.jpg which contains in wikipedia itself. The wind or breeze 11:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)The wind or breeze 11:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The wind or breeze (talk • contribs)

Maybe so, but you need to reference a reliable source for your change. And no, Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OI,

STOP DELETING WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THE BRACKNELL PART OF WIKIPEDIA, WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IS THE TRUTH THAT IS NEVER MENTIONED BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TOO SCARED TO WRITE THE TRUTH. CAN YOU PLEASE STOP DELETING WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN

THANK YOU

A BRACKNELL RESIDENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.244.165 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You have new messages at LadyofShalott's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thanks for the revert; it might have been ages since I noticed. I suppose I should put up one of those 'this userpage has been vandalized X times' userboxes now. Thanks again! Zelse81 (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't bother with the userbox myself - I think it just encourages them. Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was away for a while and did not see the discussion. What is the VF proposal in a nutshell. Dlohcierekim 19:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my last edit on the Town Of Danvers MA page. I pasted true and factual information. I really think you should check facts before you go and delete someones edit. Not really cool.

(cur | prev) 13:22, 31 August 2010 Philip Trueman (talk | contribs) m (21,417 bytes) (Reverted edits by 71.174.186.178 (talk) to last version by LilHelpa) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.186.178 (talk)

While that wasn't in violation of BLP, it was in violation of NPOV, but some of us are kinda laughing at Rushbo's "facepalm moment". Best wishes, Anonymous 192.12.88.50 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been doing a lot of very good work reverting of vandalism. However, very often you don't leave warning messages on the vandals' talk pages, and I thought it worth taking a minute to mention some of the reasons why it is a good idea always to do so. Firstly, sometimes vandals actually do take notice of the warnings and stop. A lot of vandalism is done by kids playing around, not seriously meaning any harm, and a note calling their attention to the disruptive nature of what they are doing is enough. Secondly, if there is a string of warnings, another editor coming to leave a warning may realise that there is a serious problem and take further action (such as a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism) whereas if they find a clear page they will not have any reason to think there is a significant history of vandalism unless they spend the time searching through editing history. Thirdly, If any vandalism is reverted using Huggle, then Huggle automatically checks the history of warnings, and if appropriate automatically reports to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Finally, if a report eventually is made to AIV, if thee are few or no warnings it is very likely that an admin will decline the report, as it is not usual to act against vandals until they have had adequate warning. The consequence of all this is that I think it really is well worth the small amount of time and effort it takes to always leave warnings when reverting vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know, I know. Firstly, I'd point out that it's not compulsory to leave a warning. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, usually depending on the severity and intensity of the attack. Secondly, I don't, and won't, use Huggle - this is a personal decision. I use PILT, which I am still developing, and which I may, in the fullness of time, modify to auto-warn. That does mean that the balance of effort between reverting and warning is shifted - it's a lot more effort to warn than revert. I'm going to ignore your sentence starting "Finally, ", following WP:AGF, but I'd like you to know that I don't like the implication - please look down each and every one of my contributions to AIV and tell me where an admin declined my report on the grounds that the vandal had been insufficiently warned. Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, when you undermine my efforts to keep VANDALISM from afflicting Wikipedia, you're just as guilty as the people who write them. Cease and desist immediately. 96.50.86.207 (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found this. Wikipedia:VANDTYPES. I think the secret's out. Ocaasi 12:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?????? there's a S T A T U E of Lolita Pluma, what more of a "verifiable source" do you need? http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=imghp&q=lolita+pluma+statue&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.190.67 (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You have new messages at Sabrebd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I have blocked that IP and revision-deleted his BLP contributions, including one to your talk page. I didn't bother with one on your user page, which is fairly standard, more or less a badge of honour for an anti-vandalism patroller's user page, but I will rev-del it if you like. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but don't bother. I'm sure you've better things to do. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[9] Philip Trueman (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a mustache like mine, or our revert conflict?! Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. you need some serious archiving! Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Just ought you want to know,IP 206.77.200.75 is vandalizing again, this timeon the featured article.I suggest locking the page andblocking the IP. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:00 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there is. Might be some little malfunction in huggle, but I'm not sure. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue - in the meantime, have a barnstar to soothe the pain of vandal-hunting. We really do appreciate it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not afraid of hell? hm? meat-eating leads to did you know? If you are vegetarian than why do you remove that warning?

In Sri Caitanya Caritamrita adi lila, chapter 17 verse 166 Caitanya Mahaprabhu confirms:

go-ange yata loma tata sahasra vatsara go-vadhi raurava-madhye pace nirantar

Cow killers and cow eaters are condemned to rot in hell for as many thousands of years as there are for each hair on the body of every cow they eat from.

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana

If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.143.138 (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the Rob Schiender thing on the UFC 121 page isnt even legit, and you just let it stand? Ken20008 here, wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken20008 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. I was reverting obvious vandalism, not correcting every single error on the page. You have a problem with that? Philip Trueman (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello little bastard, i'm only doing my job in the wikipedia comonity. Stop being an asshole you stupid pain in the ass. 194.65.225.111 (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this user blanked the Dota 2 page which I was the original creator of, (in fact, I had created it with Notepad and had it saved on my computer for two months, in anticipation). Anyways, I checked out the user who blanked the Dota 2 page and saw that this has been a consistent behavior, blanking pages all over. You warned him fairly recently, but obviously he didn't take the hint. Could you act to stop this nonsense? DarthBotto _talk•cont 17:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The direct answer to your question is that I can't take any action, becaue I don't have admin rights. If that IP persists in vandalising, despite being warned (see WP:WARN), then he can be reported at WP:AIV and an admin will decide whether to block him for a while. I have my doubts whether that would help much - there's some evidence (see [10]) that the vandal is using a range of IPs, and vandalism has to be really serious to justify a range block. If the article attracts vandalism from multiple IPs then you could ask at WP:RFPP for it to be semi-protected for a while, but it takes a fair amount of vandalism to justify that. Finally, I can't help noticing that if you've had the article ready to go for a couple of months, and the game has only just been announced, then you must have some inside knowledge, in which case you really should read WP:COI, and possibly WP:OWN. No-one will mind you reverting vandalism on that page, but I wonder whether you are the best person, from Wikipedia's point of view, to contribute content. Philip Trueman (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do have a reservation for Defense of the Ancients, IceFrog and an interest in what happens with Dota 2. However, you will find that my considerable amount of contributions to the DotA page are all reverting vandalism and opinionated statements. I want to see good quality pages, whether they discuss topics I like or dislike. I did review WP:COI and WP:OWN and after consideration, I still think that I have made invaluable edits that won't jeopardize my integrity as a contributor to Wikipedia. DarthBotto _talk•cont 00:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You have new messages at Yong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Re:October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Gush Etzion appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you.

Please be very careful when editing articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Arbitration Committee has authorised special sanctions for those working in this field who do not abide by the principles of Wikipedia. You could find yourself blocked very quickly. Philip Trueman (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the wikipedia entry was non-NPOV and I changed it to a balanced view as agreed by the international community. Please be very careful about Israeli-occupation related articles, you should not repeat Israeli narrative on wikipedia verbatim. 74.96.165.65 (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from reverting the edits back to Israeli POV narrative before you show which edit of mine was biased.74.96.165.65 (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral point of view is what the international community agrees with, you are reverting it to Israeli narrative and you are claiming the Israeli narrative to be NPOV. Discuss if you believe otherwise.74.96.165.65 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a consensus on wikipedia says that the earth is flat, you would not add that to wikipedia articles if the majority of experts disagree with that. If you are too close to the Israeli government narrative, it's best not to edit Israeli-occupation related articles. It is called occupation under international law.74.96.165.65 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that you call them "Israeli-occupation related articles" not "Israeli-Palestinian conflict related articles" is enough to indicate that you are the one who is not adopting a neutral point of view. Try thinking about this: It has been said (on Wikipedia) that the best test of whether an article has been written from a neutral point of view is whether you can read it and not be able to tell which side of the argument the author is on. Slightly more personally, I think that your refusal to accept that there is another point of view is an image of why the conflict is proving impossible to resolve. That's a fault that exists on both sides, of course. I have visited both Israel and the West Bank. I have spent money in both places. I have met Israelis (Jews and Arabs, including both Muslim and Christian Arabs), and Palestinians, in the country they all call home. It's a great country and I hope to go back there some day and see more of it and meet more of the people. I wish the conflict could be resolved. It won't be resolved by failing to listen. Philip Trueman (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an occupation as agreed by UN and International Court of Justice. Nazi occupation of Poland was an occupation, not a conflict. US occupation of Iraq is not a conflict, it's called occupation. I wish you would call it an occupation as well and play a role in asking Israel to fulfill its obligations under international law, there are only a handful of countries that are blocking a peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem, every year the UN General Assembly votes for a resolution on "Peaceful settlement of the Palestine Question" and the vote is 150+ countries on one side and US, Israel and recently Canada, Australia and some small Pacific Islands on the other side, I hope you would push Israel to join the world consensus and either accept a settlement that is being offered for decades or give equal rights to all people regardless of their religion. It won't be resolve by failing to listen and getting the US to veto all resolutions that ask Israel to follow the international law.74.96.165.65 (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please do not revert it to Israeli POV, Gush Etzion is a settlement and like all other settlements in the occupied territories (UN term, non-POV term), it is a major violation of international law, it's illegal under UN Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. If you believe that "illegal" and "occupation" are not accurate terms under international law, provide a source for your claim and we can talk about it, otherwise do not revert it to Israeli POV.74.96.165.65 (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ARBPIA. Beyond that, I've nothing more to say to you until you can convince me that you're listening. Philip Trueman (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who'd have thought a bicosoecid deserved an SVG makeover of its low-res bitmap illustration? Thanks for tackling that! I'd have done it if I knew how back when I created the article, but I hadn't thought about doing it ever since I did learn how. Is there a list of images somewhere needing vectorized? I might tackle some in my free time if there is. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops...now I feel really dumb. I meant to post this on someone else's page! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention about User:Phillip trueman. (You said "Please be gentle here - I think he's a genuine newbie.") I had given a username hard block, but reading your comment I realised you were right, and I was wrong, so I substituted a much gentler block notice, and invited him to change his username. It may, of course, be too late if he has already read the first one and never comes back, but at least, thanks to you, I was able to try to be kinder. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am updating the Meir Kahane page with accurate information based on references.

Please look at the notes page where everything changed is explained.

a. The village voice is mentioned without reference b. The obituary reference is false as it does not refer to what is claimed. Thise should be removed until there are proper references.

c. Mr. Kaufman is saying what he heard in a private conversation with Rabbi Kahane. He happens to be self described as sonmeone who hates what rabbi Kahane stands for and he would want to bring the Rabbi down.

There are proper references for those items and it is correct to poinbt them out.

Please explain your "vandalism" charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Keiran Lee, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Keiran Lee was changed by Philip Trueman (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.966656 on 2010-11-08T09:02:28+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I'm reporting the above false positive from ClueBot. I didn't delete it because it's not my talk page and so you'd know what the heck I was on about. Millahnna (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 05:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for work countering vandalism. But why, if I may ask, don't you leave warnings? Quite often I run into repeat offenders who could have been blocked earlier if they had been warned earlier (like after this one). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered this before. In the first place, the aim of the game is to protect the encyclopedia, not to get people blocked. It isn't compulsory to warn; sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. I have issued thousands of warnings. In general I make a judgement about how determined the vandal is. A random scribble to a school page by an IP is less likely to get a warning than some serious BLP defamation by a registered user. To some extent this choice is driven by the anti-vandal tool I use; it's a lot quicker to revert than to warn. (And no, I have no intention of switching to e.g. Huggle). Philip Trueman (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for having rollbacked one of your edits in the Child article as vandalism, I did not intend to rollback anybody's edition, but I wrongly pressed the button. Diego Grez (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you perform this revert? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adrienne_Lau&action=historysubmit&diff=412482353&oldid=412482291

Pay attention! p.s: This comment comes to you from 500mph at 36,000 feet up in the air. Cheers. 12.130.118.69 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always revert discriminately. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary, and a spell-checker. And just what did you expect me to do about a change that introduced a ((crap)) template? Philip Trueman (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phillip Trueman,

For a few months now, Hmring and Realpolitikz have been working on the Gun violence and gun control in Texas article and would like you to help us improve it. Please feel free to make any comments or edits into the article as we try to further improve it.

Thanks for your time and effort!

--Realpolitikz (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Darren Le Gallo is Amy Adams' boyfriend. My suggestion could I create Darren Le Gallo page to Wikipedia? --Nestor1010 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic rule in such cases is that "Relationships do not confer notability". See WP:NOTINHERITED. If the relationship is significant in her personal or professional life then that could justify a paragraph on him in the article on her, but not a new article. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see Amy Adams page at World Rally Championship Wiki at Wikia? I have see it two hours ago, but I don't know who is created that page that she is a rally driver at Wikia. --Nestor1010 (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Good Job. — Bryan Anderson (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Trueman this is important contribution for tourism on the world

In 2001 Mr. David Martin Rendón of the Private University of Tacna - Peru, tourism is defined to science "The turismología"as: "Social Science of fact, given by an orderly process that includes different actions motivation, movement and use of space tourism, the plant that supports it, its structure and super structure of the homos turísticus " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turismologotcq (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but if it isn't well-sourced (see WP:V), then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Somewhere else, maybe, but not here. Philip Trueman (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the message

I am going through the autobiog of Janet Brown and it states Butterworth was a Lieutenant Commander (No service given), although looking at rank structure it would appear to be correct for the Navy. It then goes onto say he gave his "Fleet Air Arms" to Janet upon their wedding. Unless you get Fleet Air Arms in the Navy or Brown was incorrect in calling him a Lieutenant Commander remains to be seen. I will overlook the bit about the Fleet Air Arms at this time so I will revert back to the navy. Also I feel his service rank is important to the article so will not become bogged down by information which could be considered confusing when trying to state the facts. All the best Cassianto (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops! I do tend to steer keep clear of Services article's as you can see!! Thanks for letting me know Cassianto (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.227.112 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am trying to expand the article Helios House. Please do not revert.

Your Yobot deleted my entry in Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, Article 23(c). If you do not like my blunt language, replace it with your diplomatic language, but do not delete my entry, because it describes fundamental flaw of the convention. Article 23(c) is really preposterous!Quinacrine (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Really appreciating the great anti-vandalism efforts, keep up the fabulous work! C(u)w(t)C(c) 04:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you use a certain set of tools to help with your AV duties? Thanks, C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC) :)[reply]

Hello Philip Trueman, I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You always seem to surprise me with the amount of work you put into this website, for this, I give you this barnstar! Frozen4322 : Chat 14:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry abut that. I had been contributing to Wikipedia when I was not logged in a few minutes ago. When I decided to log in, I saw that I had made a mistake with a past edit. And, of course, being me, I was lazy. Instead of editing my mistake manually, I chose to revert all my edits to get to the one that I had made a mistake on. I am a faithful user, and I would never vandalize a page. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Philip, I saw that you have been reverting the ip vandal on the page too. I wanted to let you know that I reported it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I'm new to the recent change patrolling so hopefully that was the right procedure. Churchgoer251 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only did some technical image file manipulations; the content of the image is from West Point. I could do such a fix, but I wouldn't really give it a high priority, and a lot of other people could fix it as well as I could... AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 09:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove your warning as it's made redundant by what I've said (which seems to me to be a bit friendlier ;) ). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Hi Philip Trueman, I've seen you doing good work of reverting vandalism and other inappropriate edits. But giving users who disrupt Wikipedia warnings for vandalism and inappropriate edits is strongly recommended. Another easy and quick way is that you can also use Wikipedia:Twinkle Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You have new messages at ChrisGualtieri's talk page.
Message added 01:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why you did not warning template user talk:146.151.60.125? BTW: after reviewing the IP's vand only editing, I left him a vand4im. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop redirecting the Michael Thomas (American Musician) page. I am Michael Thomas and I am maintaining the page. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelthomas19 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was indicating that the decline of Atlanta is due to the heavy African-American presence. These people are lazy and mentally deficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.103.10 (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.138.13 (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are awesome

Sailormoon1345 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like a report you made at AIV inadvertently deleted all the headers [11]. Are you using Twinkle or another automated tool? - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! Mistakes happen. I just wanted to let you know in case some tool needed an error report. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	question
	Philip Trueman. I am not versant in Talk and would like to discuss how to suggest edits. You contacted a colleage. I'm on Wiki as davidthomasatiiroc. Thanks so much. Davidthomasatiiroc (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, I recently edited the page: Flan. I would just like to know why you deleted all of my revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnargert625 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Teamwork Barnstar

Thanks for your message Philip. I hear and share your concerns. Given we are a nonprofit and work for investors and market participants, we would like to get basic facts out there and then let the wiki world add more context. Would i be able to send you something for review? I was thinking something along the lines of the FINRA and SEC entries, and leaving a full section for "Criticism". In short, we'd like to augment the entry, not remove what's there. Thoughts? Davidthomasatiiroc (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Michael DeKort

Thank you for trying to fix the wiki on me and notifying MrJacksonThomas you thought his comments were destructive. When I try to fix the page he just comes back in and changes it again.

The MrJacksonThomas person has been slandering me for quite a while. You can tell from his own profile he is a nameless coward who propagates misinformation for the fun of it, to stoke his ego or to serve his masters. I believe he works for the USCG senior leadership or the defense contractors I took on. If you know of any way i can report him and his activities to wiki and have him dealt with please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imispgh (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted MrJacksonThomas's edits for being unsourced, rather than anything else. If, as you suggest, he is not acting in good faith and you are, then I suggest you follow the dispute resolution process, by canvassing for a third opinion. But in any case, I must draw your attention to WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Of course there's no problem with you removing defamatory material from the article, but beyond that I hope you realise that you are not the best person to edit it. If you are right, then MrJacksonThomas also has a conflict of interest. Please tread carefully, both of you, or you may, ultimately, find yourselves topic-banned. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas5)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

These two are working together and are in violation of WP:3RR and engaged in an edit war. User talk:24.247.51.126 ‎ (User talk:108.67.103.142 They've been warned; they persist. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have too much free time, reverting my "vandalism" makes me want to do it full time just to piss you off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.2.142 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how do you add things to here sorry about that XD what is a diagram??????? still dont get it.......... you there?

Many thanks to you kind user, for letting me know that first hand and witness accounts of events are not appropriate amendments to a Wikipedia article.

I will make sure to acquire actual written interactions between the police, the school, and the victims for my next update.

Kindest regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4crying0u+l0ud (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great work ThorPorre (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source it is from personal experience as I was there to see the discovery. I was a witness so i thought I would upload it here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor11223344 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being a vandal fighter.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a ((Talkback)) message on my talk page. @ 03:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip,

I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

The goal of this project is to map out the global economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dear user Philip Trueman, I know that i'm Violating Wikipedia laws by vandalism . Really the matter is , user:Ssriram mt is always changing the civic status and population of tiruvannamalai. that activity is highly annoying residents of thiruvannamalai , the original Tamil people . As i'm the president of Student bloc of tiruvannamalai city (special) grade municipality that's my duty to change all those items . sorry for violating laws ., thanking you parthiban gay (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and he need to take this to dispute resolution, or you could both end up being banned for edit-warring. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone a step further and reported in vandalism page. The user:Guy of india has resorted to racist/personal abuse as seen here - [12]. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be less quick on the revert and warn trigger. [13] was not unconstructive, I was simply trying to fix a typo (so →to) but made a typo myself (yo). You clearly did not assess the situation properly and gave me this. I've come back two and a half years later to tell you this, so please try not to do anything of this nature in the future. Regards, Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 10:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Please read WP:COMPETENCE. I will choose to ignore " .. please try not to do anything of this nature in the future." rather than interpret it as a threat. Philip Trueman (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Trueman,

I used to read Jim Bishop's columns, translated into Spanish, in a local (Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico) newspaper called El Informador, in the 1970's and 1980's. King Features Syndicate distributed his columns to some Latin American newspapers.

The title of his column for his Spanish-speaking readers was "La Vida es Así" (So Is Life).

Perhaps you might want to add this datum to the biography of Mr. Bishop.

Cordially,

Alejandro Ochoa G.
189.162.222.130

No apology needed. I would never have seen it otherwise: I goofed.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information. Interesting (though I do still hope that you and your guide are wrong !). Regards -- Beardo (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on William Franklin met the editing guidelines, what gives?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.205.148.213 (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What gives is that YouTube isn't a reliable source. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:The Road_Not_Taken". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 17:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Well done spotting the family of vandal accounts. Keep up the fine work! TeaDrinker (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - can one use PILT and Lupin's tools at the same time?-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 20:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not tried, but why would you want to? PILT is an alternative to WP:AVT - very similar but with some differences. My guess is that you could certainly install both, and then you would get two sets of additional links in the toolbox with no obvious way to tell which was which. What is it you actually want to do? Philip Trueman (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want better tools and I saw PILT mentioned. I wasn't sure how it worked so wasn't sure if I wanted to replace Lupin or not. I'll give it a shot later and see. Thanks.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 10:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help!- I tried but got nothing - (ok so I put it in wrong first and put in a _ later) I replaced Lupin with PILT and the tools at the side went away and were not replaced. I know I put it in wrong initially but what am I doing wrong? (User:Antiqueight/common.js) -- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 13:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to try is to change your browser mode. If you're using IE10, hit PF12, and change the Browser Mode from IE10 to IE9. It's something to do with the browser's security settings not liking JavaScript. Philip Trueman (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Firefox...-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 01:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm not sure I can help much. I have seen stuff on the Internet about the hoops that need to be jumped through to enable/disable JavaScript in Firefox - you might search for that. AVT and PILT have diverged significantly in some respects; it's possible AVT has something to get round this that I haven't folded back into PILT. I'll take a look sometime but I can't promise it will be soon. Philip Trueman (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, but I understand. I'll see if I can find anything tomorrow - but otherwise I'll leave it for a bit..Thanks-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 01:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Just in case you are not watching User:Lupin/recent2.js, I've suggested some improvements to the code recently (see User talk:Lupin/recent2.js#Small fixes and below). You might want to port (some or all of) the changes to your fork of this tool. Best regards, Helder 08:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry... Have a nice weekend! Helder 09:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently saw you reverted (gross) vandalism on Knocking on wood. Has the user gone to WP:AIV? (I've recently given them a final warning.) George8211 ^{conversations} 16:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You have new messages at LogX's talk page.
Message added 14:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

--    L o g  X   14:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good job! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Wow! Impressed by your anti-vandalism hard work Dэя-Бøяg 03:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, takin' a look to your contribs etc, and seeing that you still are reviewer and rollbacker, I've nominated you for autopatrolled rights. Good luck and good work ;-) --Dэя-Бøяg 03:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should get MiszaBot III to archive this page? George8211 ^{conversations} 19:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed that you do not warn users when you revert their vandalism. Please remember to warn users so that they know that they had made unconstructive edits and will allow other users to report the user appropriately to AIV. I have also noticed that in the few times you warned users, you placed their warnings under a section called "warnings". While this is not an explicit problem, it is usually standard practice to use the month and date as the section heading instead, like "November 2013". Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) 01:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm now officially stalking you and warning every user that you refuse to warn :P Darylgolden^(talk) 01:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ip 64.69.139.119 persists on adding unsorced information despite having been explained that they shouldn't you can see more of it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Next_Top_Model_(cycle_20)&action=history 71.239.172.110 (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bot doesn't actually check for edit conflicts; this isn't normally a problem since it performs each edit quite rapidly -- but on occasion, it will accidentally remove the preceding edit. If I (or one of the other operators) ever get around to rewriting the code, that won't happen anymore. —Darkwind (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip. Thanks for fixing my mistake on the Turbulence page. I intended to roll back some of the vandalism done on it, and unwittingly redid some of the vandalism! Sorry, I'm new to making changes on here. I've since deleted a few other spots on that same page. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinholst (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Trueman: Why are you so protective of the Dresden Bombing page? It is grossly biased, failing to give a background or description of the numbers and manner of the deaths of millions upon millions which were caused by Germany in general, and Dresden in particular; two of the factories producing Zyklon B were at Dresden. You cite two people who whimpered about their experience in the bombing, which was no different to that of any other people caught in bombing, with the difference that any bombing received by Germany was entirely due to a response to their own atrocities. You should have listed comments from children from the thousands of peaceful cities bombed by Germany, perhaps to compare their experiences, along with a comparison of the experiences of children subject to torture or being hurled into gas chambers with their families, on the orders of the smug people of Dresden and other German cities. You spew yards of material about a moral dilemma, when it has been found that the overwhelming majority of people, to this day, believe firmly that all and any bombing of Germans - including the "civilians" who were happy to send their children to be contaminated with the Nazi ideology - was necessary and in fact absolutely morally justified. You do not mention the evidence that this brought about the end of the war and a collapse of Hitler's personal popularity. You do not mention that those who wring their hands over Dresden are found to be, almost to a man, revisionists and Holocaust deniers. To be 'neutral' on the subject of Nazi Germany, in any respect whatsoever, is to be amoral; you may spend your entire life sitting in front of a computer, nit-picking the ideas of other, and posing as unbiased while trying to present your beliefs as indisputable facts, but those of us who actually engage with fellow humans and experience the full range of human emotions know without doubt that unspeakable evil demands a negative response. You are not the world's moral guardian, fortunately; you are just someone with time on his hands who fails to respond emotionally to the 'back story'. Remember that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.217.77 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are in breach of Wikipedia policies. The article is about the bombing of Dresden, not about German war crimes or anything else. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, please do so constructively. By the way, my father was a Lancaster bomber pilot during that war, and was awarded the DFC. Please bear that in mind. Thanks. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi apparently i tried to put in facts on the algonquin page but i must have messed up or something i am sorry for the inconvenence... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlsman14 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Philip,

Why do you keep removing my changes to the World Citizen page? I am the owner of the registered company, World Citizen®.

I look forward to your response.

Thanks, Naysan

NaysanFaizi (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion here which mentions you as a WP editor. Feel free to remove this notification from your talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me why you deleted my edits to the Peter Tippett page? I am new to an editorial role with Wikipedia and am trying to follow all guidelines, so if I did something in error, please let me know, but you have reverted several hours worth of research and edits back to the old version. I work for Dr. Tippett and have been tasked with modifying and correcting his Wiki page, which was apparently originally created without his knowledge. I note in the history page that there has been quite a bit of unauthorized previous activity, so perhaps you were attempting to clean that, but PLEASE revert my edits to this page, as I will be continuing to rebuild this page over the next 24 hours to comply with Dr. Tippett's biographical data. Thank you. Lea M Sims (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I find myself regretting my honesty about my connection to Dr. Tippett. I mistakenly assumed that my connection to him made me a MORE credible source for the right information about him, not less so. Dr. Tippett has no desire to puff himself up but to simply have a credible Wiki page that can be accessed when people Google him. His frequent role as a keynote speaker at industry conferences and events drives a lot of people, who may have been unfamiliar with him, to find out more about who is. Since someone's Wiki identity hovers at the front end of any search, it's important to him to either not have a page at all or have one that is an accurate representation of him. How is that supposed to occur if you only allow people with no connection to him to post information about him? Who in the world would randomly create a page about him...and with what resources? They have no access to his published works, industry interviews, and biographical data. Now I have to wade around in the COI area to get some kind of resolution? Lea M Sims (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me deal with the easy bit first. If an article that is a biography of a living person contains something defamatory then anyone can remove that something - even the subject of the article can do so. No question. The trouble comes when people want to control what is in the articles about them. They can't - Wikipedia is drawn from published, reliable, non-copyrighted sources. If those sources don't exist, then there won't be an article. If the sources exist but the subject isn't notable, then there won't be an article. No-one has the right to a Wikipedia article about themselves, anymore than they have a right to an Encyclopedia Britannica article about themselves, no matter how important it may be to them to have one. If your boss wants a biography he controls on the Internet then he can put it on a networking site or even create his own website, but Wikipedia is something different - it's an encyclopaedia, and we have rules here. Philip Trueman (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. The article needed attention from an experience Wikir and I was impatient. But please note that there was no justification for you undoing anything else that i wrote on that page (if it was you). Anyone doing so clearly had not read a word of it and was truly a moronic vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuckwitt (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. I reverted your IP twice on this article. My edits were [14] and [15]. The first revert was of an edit that was pretty close to pure vandalism (of an article); the second undid discussion that (you admit) did not belong in an article, and also undid your deletion of a validly-cited reference. Please don't do that - pushing your own point of view by deleting references to authorities you disagree with isn't the way to build an encyclopedia, and may well get you blocked. I'm tempted to suggest that you might also wish to change your username, but there doesn't seem to be much point. Philip Trueman (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, could you please explain me why you have reverted all my edits in the article on "Catalan independence"? --Hispalois (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. So I get you right I can repeat all my edits with the exception of the one with the "t word", can't I? --Hispalois (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this user edits jayalalitha article and defames her. this user talks rubbish. please ensure that user is blockedMalkinrowdy (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip, - Just a big, spontaneous "Thank you!" for removing the unsourced POV rant from the radical centrism page yesterday. I have devoted over 100 hours to making that page objective, coherent, and responsibly sourced, and it feels good when others help keep it that way. - Babel41 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are a cunt

Thanks for ditching that link on this page; I hadn't got round to doing anything about it until today. Is Irving an unreliable source these days? I know his stuff is dodgy, but has there been any discussion anywhere about not using him as a source any more?
Also, it's a bit of a cheek handing out free copies of a book that was supposed to have been consigned to the dustbin of history long ago, isn't it? Anyway, thanks again, Xyl 54 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After the libel action Irving did re-release his book with "corrections"; presumably it's the corrected version that is now being made available. I'm not aware that his book is regarded as an unreliable source, but I made the edit I did because it was being recommended for further reading. Broome's own book "Convoy is to scatter", which has many direct quotes of the actual signals exchanged at the time, would be a far better recommendation - primary sources are fine as recommended further reading, of course. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the discussion about Irving’s unreliability; it’s here (and here), but there was no conclusion.

Also, I’ve had a look at the linked page; it turns out it’s Irving’s “International Campaign for Real History” (which seems like a contradiction in terms!); and it is the uncorrected 1968 edition he’s offering, together with a new (2009) edition, which has “other new material” added, and “the few words held to be libellous” removed. So, no hint of an apology for lying, or even an acknowledgement of it; just a ploy to re-publish the same misleading stuff.

Anyway, it’s gone now; so, no worries! Thanks again, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This IP, 68.14.160.191,[16] has removed references and referenced information from the Crusades article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. You have new messages at Talk:Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom#Homage.
Message added 17:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I figured I'd give you this barnstar before I forget to, seeing that your contributions are excellent and have made more than just a small difference to Wikipedia. K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip, I am no longer active as I have got fed up with the "community's" failure to control egotistical admins who like to threaten good faith content contributors. I decided that if those who control this site (admins, arbcom etc.) are happier to be rude to me than to thank me and whilst the WMF fail to control the assorted forms of corruption going on in the chapters and on the projects, then I can take my spare energy and spare time elsewhere.

If my will gives way and I do start getting involved again I would not want to use my real name and would want to clean start. I've not logged in to reply as I do not want to leave a checkuser trace.

FYI infoboxes have been the subject of endless arguments at the various classical music projects with people whose contributions I respect (such as Gerda A and Smerus) clashing with each other at places up to and including Arbcom.

BTW I did not notice you in any of the Prom queues last summer. Are you still going? I made twenty something including 4 Wagner operas. Maybe w'll get some interesting Strauss this year.

Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.212.113 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I understand. I'll leave it - I have other battles to fight. I did prom last season, but only at weekends except for a few special nights (e.g. the Glyndebourne Prom, which I always make an effort for). I did get to Parsifal, Tannhäuser and Götterdämmerung. Since February 2012 I've had a new job Romsey; great fun but not best placed for promming, so getting to a Prom after work is close to impossible. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that you've got a good job, but yes Romsey to Kensington for 6.40 or 7.10 isn't going to be easy. Are you still living on the Greenhill estate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.203.96 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we take this conversation offline? It's getting too public. My Wiki account is enabled for e-mail. Some reference to the names of our office-mates when we worked adjacently would be good proof of identity. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of a recent discussion:

1. I like subheadings, for example in TFA L'incoronazione di Poppea.
2. Of course several voice parts can be mentioned, example Gabriele Schnaut, - even the present version has them.
3. Of course several [unspeakable] can describe one thing, example Der Kontrabass, even the present version has them.

I met several designs, and came to like "person", as well maintained, functional and free from colour play, bolded linked parameter names etc. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. For every reason for a person to be notable there will be some attributes that are relevant to the reason for their notability, and many that are not. Having those as parameters to the relevant [unspeakable] does three things: documents relevant information in a orderly way (and one which might be connected-up to categorisation - to pick up on one of your examples, Gabriele Schnaut is currently categorised as a soprano but not as a mezzo-soprano); draws attention to the editor to the need to document the relevant attribute; and, quite possibly, draws attention to the editor that, if the attributes don't fit, that he may in fact be using an unsuitable [unspeakable]. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, added the categories. Good thoughts, will happily use a specialised one once we get it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A baritone, yes or no, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I simply do not understand the point you are trying to make. Is the subject of the article a baritone or not? That can surely be resolved by reference to reliable sources. Was User:Nikkimaria right to make the edit - based, possibly, on an automated trawl of the encyclopedia? Or what? I'm sorry, but I am left feeling that you are trying to make a point, and that I simply have no idea what it is. Philip Trueman (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First: I missed your comment above, came to tell you about a possible solution for opera singers. Now to the other: sorry that I was to short. The question is not if he is a baritone, yes or no, but if I can say that the article might be improved by an infobox, yes or no. I said yes. Nikkimaria said no, which makes no sense because it's the default anyway. So I agree, someone wanted to make a point. The parameter "needs_infobox" is translated to a very polite request, "An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article." (see the "tale of the ironing lady" on my talk). I wanted to make the point of showing you how welcome such a polite request is when it comes to opera singers.

ps: Smerus and I (mentioned in the thread above) enjoy cordial collaboration, even if we disagree ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Including parameters

We tried to embed parameters from ((infobox musical artist)) in ((infobox person)), see link above, however, not everybody liked it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

revert
Thank you, bibliophile trying to do the right thing with scientific background, for your tireless gnomish fight against vandalism, and for a new approach, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 776 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was logged in on my PC and my daughter did something to the Poodle page. Although she has been told not to edit Wikipedia, even under her own name- she is eleven- she was experimenting. Grant McKenna (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the KLOS C article. I've done most of the edits on that article to date, and I specifically used the words "suspecting that", not, "Iran did". So good call on the revert.

I'm seriously wondering if the article shouldn't be renamed Klos C instead on KLOS C. All of the sources list the ship as the Klos C, and I've read nothing about it being an acronym. I could check with the pages creator, but he seems to have backed off. Thoughts? Juneau Mike (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and made the move. Was only correcting the all-caps to traditional spelling. The actual spelling did not change. Juneau Mike (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why has my contribution to the Notable Alumni of St. Francis Prep been reverted? Elizabeth Cucinotta Sorvillo is a very notable alumna of the school. Just because she has exposed alleged corruption instead of painting the school in a false light, why am I not allowed to add her name to the list? Please research her and respect my contribution. It is valid. Thank you. TEA3474645324 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you added a redlink to the list of notable people. If she's notable enough, she should have an article .. Philip Trueman (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if I could go and Nominate you for Adminship, I have to ask before I nominate you. So, with your permission.... Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 15:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philip Trueman: Happy Attack Dog is an account that's been here for 3 months, and has 811 edit. In some RfA discussions, the qualifications of the nominator can more as much of issue as the qualifications of the nominee. For a very recent example, I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Koavf. My advice would be not to accept the nomination of Happy Attack Dog, a newbie who himself has skated on some thin ice. Best, BMK (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Tricky. I take your point; it hadn't occurred to me and perhaps it should have done. I tend not to follow the discussions on RFA nowadays; I used to once, but I was turned off my the cliquey discussions that seemed to centre on anything but "would this be in the best interest of Wikipedia?". I'm not ambitious for the bit: it would make what I do more varied, since I would be happy to take my turn handling routine requests at AIV, UAA and RFPP, and save me the frustration of having to make such requests instead of being able to take the required action myself, but that's about it. On the other hand, I have no objection to having my name put forward. Perhaps Happy Attack Dog has something to say on the matter? Philip Trueman (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ BMK, How have I skated on Thin Ice? Also, How am I still A newbie? Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 12:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be calm about this, Happy Attack Dog. It's not about how things are, it's about how they may seem, rightly or wrongly, to some people who participate in RFA. They may well regard an editor with fewer than 1000 edits as a newbie. I can sort of relate to that - I'd made over 3000 before I applied for rollback. That doesn't mean I agree, it means I recognize that there are some people who think that way, and I suggest that you should recognize it too, or you may find your own well-intentioned efforts in the RFA arena backfiring. I'm not in a position to comment on the 'thin ice' suggestion, so I won't, though it's a shame BMK did not provide a link. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I also Nominated You Right Here -->[[17]]. Maybe We can move onto the Latter Part of This. Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HAD: Here's a tip for you: In English, only words at the beginning of sentences and proper nouns (that is names) are capitalized. All other words should not be capitalized. If you come to a word, and wonder whether it should be capitalized or not, the chances are that it shouldn't be, so don't do it.

For instance, in your previous comment, the only words which should have been capitalized were "Good" and "Maybe", because they began sentences. The other words - "Nominated", "You", "Right", "Here", "We", "Latter", "Part" and "This" - should not have been capitalized, as they are neither at the beginning of a sentence nor are they proper nouns. In this respect English differs from some other Germanic languages. BMK (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you asked "How have I skated on [t]hin [i]ce?" By getting yourself involved in things you have neither the experience or competence to do, such as nominating other editors to be admins, or calling for topic ban votes on AN/I. You simply don't know enough about this place, and your inexperience is readily visible to anyone who's followed your edit history. BMK (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"How am I still [a] newbie?" Because you've only been here three and a half months; because while you have 800+ edits most of those have been simple vandalism reverts using an automated tool -- useful work, but not something that really teaches you much about the ins and outs of the place; because your "look and feel" is clearly that of a newbie; and because you continue to act like a newbie. BMK (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to butt in here, I followed this from ANI then to HAD's talk page, then to here. @Philip Trueman, before you accept you might want to read (several times) Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Also, if your contributions put you anywhere other than the no-brainer support in the RfA, then you may want to consider a co-nominator. @Happy Attack Dog: if you think it is in Mr. Trueman's best interest, then you may want to enlist a co-nominator; see Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination#Editors willing to be asked to nominate a user. The worst thing that can happen to a long-time user is a misguided RfA attempt. Please be sure all of your ducks are in row first. Rgrds. --72.251.71.103 (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK, Why do you seem to Be following Me Around? Whenever I Do something Bold, You always seem to Comment. Also, I am affected by A love for the Shift Key, but I did not know that others Cared About When I use Capital Letters. Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 13:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following you around? Why, what other pages besides this one and AN/I have we both edited lately?

In point of fact, we have barely any overlaps at all. BMK (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At a glance, you seem to have more than adequate tenure and experience for the job. When the time comes, there are a number of fine, experienced people that would be happy to first offer a proper review and then nomination. Ken is correct that you are best served by someone who is very familiar with the process and can help along the way. Adminship requires some sacrifice but if you enjoy helping others and like new challenges, it has its rewards as well. If I can help, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Right now, I really do want to put the idea to one side for a while. Philip Trueman (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None at the moment, when I edited it to the last version by Flyer22, The person on the account must of continued doing it and somehow ended up that way, So noy really sure how it happened?. D Eaketts (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will consider starting using them now and in the future. D Eaketts (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not long after the protection was lifted, the exact same slander edit was added back again, this time by ‎83.237.192.131 CapnZapp (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again, by 83.237.202.219. CapnZapp (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from further reversion of edits in a manner of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dialectical_behavior_therapy&diff=622354344&oldid=622354240

Wrong formatting doesn't give basis to reversion with empty submit message. 2001:470:600D:DEAD:E94B:92C8:B4E1:F8C5 (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Next time I'll give you a warning on your talk page. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The matter's baseless reverting. Provide a basis if/when reverting. The "warning" mention motivates this clarification. Your actions require as much basis as that of other users. 2001:470:600D:DEAD:E94B:92C8:B4E1:F8C5 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing 'baseless' with 'unexplained'. I was justified in reverting your bad edit - it was, in my view, borderline vandalism (although I now realise that it was merely beginner's incompetence). Would you still like a warning for your unconstructive edit? Philip Trueman (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for formatting (templates exist for a reason), what I consider sensible response could be template-yfing the revision. Hindsight notwithstanding, was not reasonable to consider the change with information at that point. Consider changing your judgement as by brief skimming, this talk page's littered with questions about dubious reverts. -sh 2001:470:600D:DEAD:E94B:92C8:B4E1:F8C5 (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's littered with complaints about good reverts that the reverted editor didn't like. And please don't expect other people to correct your bad edits - you should write good edits to begin with. Philip Trueman (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, do you just refresh Wikipedia pages all day, waiting for vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.86.139 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Philip Trueman. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of TransferGo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that coverage in reliable sources is enough to establish notability, so a claim to be covered in reliable sources doesn't constitute a claim to notability. But right now I can't spare the time to argue. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sensitive handling of Jock Kane, I've expanded the introduction accordingly. Thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to rafting was beneficial to the company and is true of rafting worldwide - why revert?--194.81.49.122 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Andrew Tate (kickboxer): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

I can see that you have reverted my recent edit on Delhi Public School Society without specifying any reason. Can you please do so? PawanAhuja (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC) PawanAhuja (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two main reasons: Firstly, edits need to be verifiable from reliable sources - see WP:RS. HostDude isn't a reliable source. Secondly, claims of notability of alumni need to be supported - see WP:ALUMNI. If this person really is notable then there would be a Wikipedia article about him (which would have to satisfy the criteria for notability - see WP:N). Philip Trueman (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the link to HostDude because it has the links to all sources at one place. Please check the page. If you would like then I may add the media references individually. Moreover the article in Times of India will satisfy WP:ALUMNI. Thanks PawanAhuja (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you are having so many edits so why don't you become an admin? PawanAhuja (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip, thanks for your note on the username. I am the official historian of the Brasenose College Boat Club, and am currently involved in writing the BNC BC History for the 1815-2015 bicentenary. I hope this clears up any confusion, and is satisfactory. William — Preceding unsigned comment added by BNCBCHistory (talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you change what has been written ? I am an eyewitness to what I write. The truth should be known. Facts . Gines kussi2 (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Obsessive love is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obsessive love until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Anome (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to mark your CSD pages as patrolled! :P JTtheOG (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely with the fact that you refer to my addition of Arebbusch Travel Lodge in Windhoek under the wikipedia page - Tourism in Namibia as soapboxing. Both Windhoek Country Club - which opened in 1995 and Hilton which opened in 2011 are listed there and Arebbusch Travel Lodge is as much of a landmark as either of those are! Arebbusch Travel Lodge opened in 1993 - two years earlier than Windhoek Country Club - is of a similar size to both of them and offers a similar range services. I am also happy to provide you with a copy of statistics which shows that Arebbusch sleeps more guests than they do and a copy of notable events which Arebbusch has hosted. Kindly revert back to me as soon as possible. Rdn1979 (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I notice you are reverting vandalism, but you haven't been warning users. I've run into at least two people that you've reverted more than 4 times which you could have warned and reported about and they could have been banned already. Thank you! Bluefist ^talk 17:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you check the edit to the above article at 17:11 today - I'm sure it is not correct, but I'm not an expert. Regards Denisarona (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok - User:DrKay has since reverted the edits. Regards Denisarona (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Philip Trueman,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year 2016)) to user talk pages.

.

Greetings. I notice you removed some of the fluff from the "Taft" page. I've just taken a carefully wielded meataxe to it. Have a gander. I'm also going to give the editor who did all of the recent COI editing a servere admonishment. Regards Tapered (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work against vandalism, but sometimes it is better to go easy with the revert button :) - Cwobeel (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

OK I'm not contributing a lot to the English Wikipedia but still a member for almost 10 years now and more than 10 years on the French version. I understand why I had an automatic "welcome" (after 10 years...) because there was a vandalism on the Ian McKellen page. A subtle one... he was aged 116 years!! I hadn't time to look for his real age but I've found a way to warn the community that there was a vandalism by removing the age... (in order for someone to take care about that).

So my suggestion is: your bot should have an option looking at the age of the first edits of an user... because receiving an automatic welcome after 10 years, it is what one calls a "false positive" and I think my suggestion may help...

Kindly, great job anyway! Kemkem

Hi, Philip, i'm sorry, i did not have a technical dictionary available to verify this my false conviction before making corrections. These are a few occurrences of the word i was misled. Thanks of the reports, i'll be more careful in the future.--Eumolpo (πῶς λέγεις; = how do you say it?) 13:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there seems to have been a change in the rollback functionality. Discussion is currently going on here. I posted at the talk page for LAVT about the change. But it currently seems to me that LAVT and PILT cannot parse the new HTML correctly, and is making incorrect assumptions. (Non-admin javascript rollback still seems okay though.) Thought it was courteous to give a ping and ask if you see different results. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Something like this has happened before, more than once. I'll keep an eye on it but I can't promise any PILT development effort. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the patch they made restored the generic LAVT rollback functionality. PILT's fast rollback would need a patch, but I don't know what the scriptpath update it is at the moment — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: I think that the original bad change has now been rolled back further, and I have reverted some unsuccessful experimental changes to PILT I made in an attempt to fix the breakage, so we are back to the status quo ante. Please try again and tell me if it works for you. I expect there'll be some work to do on this in the future to cope with changes to the API. Many thanks for all your help and support in this. Philip Trueman (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is rude to revert without supplying an explanation.

Irrelevancy; and two thirds of what you added was unsourced. And it's rude not to sign your posts on talk pages. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevancy, no more than what's already posted (please examine) Unsourced, spend a little time away from the computer and talk to regular people sorry forgot to sign, this is first time necessary for personal comm on WP. Wikkileaker (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced" matters here. Maybe not in your world, but it does here. Please read WP:V until you understand it, and understand that it applies to you. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love um Kinglexi134 (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinglexi134: Aw, thanks! You're still on a warning, though. Philip Trueman (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work. Also can you give me a topic to work on? Texans123123 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor of wikipedia and adding contents to pages from last year (2015). I have edited the Kali page several times. As a new user I added contents from blogs. When I thought that the page was robust enough I applied to make the page a good article and lock it. Both of my requests were granted. Now the User:First_Light came and reverted my edits. The user claims blogs are not good source and tagged better-source-needed. It is ok to take such steps. But in the Kali talk page User:First_Light uses adjectives like - disruptive and other statements which seems to be insulting in public. It is not expected from a user who is long enough in wikipedia and I feel it degrades the reputation. Also I created a separate page for Dakshina_Kali which the user User:First_Light has merged with Kali. Ok, I accept it but he claims for copyright violations. Please review Dakshina_Kali. I expect an action from your side against taking my user name on public (talk page) and using terms that harms my reputations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserK (talk • contribs) 12:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the point you are making. One thing that I do understand is that you have not been following Wikipedia guidelines. Additions to articles should be supported by reliable sources, and blogs are not reliable sources. I do not understand what you mean by "taking my user name on public (talk page) and using terms that harms my reputations". If you think I have done that, please supply a diff. If you think someone else has done that, you should talk with them, not me. And please sign your talk page contributions in future. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed. IDK how the infobox name got changed, but I suspect it was earlier vandalism I overlooked... Crowley ^{call me, Moose} 01:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's with this edit? Ontario has started and PNS is a new destination for the airline. TravelLover37 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the revert, but next time please drop the obligatory warning on their talk page--it makes reporting/blocking so much easier. Ah, I think they reverted again. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

about your note on Lytico-Bodig disease the Orphanet page indicates [18] that the OMIM page is [19] and therefore if you click clinical synopsis on your left hand side you'll see Autosomal dominant indicated........thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding ((Subst:Xmas4)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. AfC submissions Random submission 2+ months 2,448 pending submissions Purge to update v t e I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Phillip - nice to meet another editor - I'm not as active as you as I have Asperger's Syndrome and my special interest is county surveying as I was the last to qualify as a county surveyor of the UK and Commonwealth and my life story was officially secret until 14 April 2014. I'd be interested to know why you have erased my recent entry.

How about "Your edit was unreferenced nonsense"? BTW, I would expect someone with Asperger's to be more careful about spelling someone's name right. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to strike up a friendship with you - I'm a happily married, straight, male, with Asperger's Syndrome and a gazillion other things wrong with me, but I'm 72 and have had my biblically appointed three score years and ten so I'm not complaining. I'm a retired county surveyor with a 50 year professional career under my belt - and am only now 'coming into my own' as I've started bitcoin mining to get very very rich very very fast to change the world from one of constant deprivation to one of manna of heaven - in cryptocurrency - I think you and I will find we have a lot in common despite the age gap - my email address is dafyddbach@mail.com

Out of curiosity, why did you summarily revert my edits on the Jim Hawkins (character) article without so much as an edit summary explaining why? You didn't revert the changes I made on any other Treasure Island character page. There is still plenty of work to do on the Hawkins article, and I'll be happy to get back to it in the near future; I just don't have time tonight. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:OVERLINK. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, try reading the references provided before undoing legit content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.39.83.80 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this; I thought I was reverting vandalism, but I had mis-read the diff and mistakenly reinserted the vandalism I meant to revert. I'm glad you noticed that. Biogeographist (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 522 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

-- Dolotta (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't vandalism Noticing the n e mail (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Philip Trueman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why various connect your of Rahman doesn't belong in Enclyopedia?

Please take more care in future.  Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

1. First, sign up your group here.
2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
3. Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
   1. When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
   2. What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
   3. What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
   4. What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
   5. What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
4. Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.

You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.