User talk:Philip Trueman

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]

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]

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]

—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]

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]

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]

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]