User talk:TruthCrusader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1[1]

Archive 2[2]

Archive 3[3]

Contents

[edit] This eventually will be Archive 4

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Boapython5.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Boapython5.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chadbryant

Thanks mate, Will do. DXRAW 08:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediators needed!

Hiya! I'm contacting you because you're listed on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal as "will take anything if you ask". Well, we've got a bit of a backlog, and I was wondering if you'd look over the current list of new cases (I've copied it here for convenience) and tell me if you'd take any of them? I'd really appreciate it! :D

I think you might be interested in the Hinduism and Turkmenistan cases, they're both somewhat difficult (I think) yet very interesting, but you may also be interested in the Sweetest Day case. Thanks again! ~Kylu (u|t) 21:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I've finally had the time during my long Wikibreak to thank the voters and commentors on my my RfA last month, and I thank you! I'll try again as previously planned in the late of spring, and hopefully I'll win it. When I get off this multi-month Wikibreak I'll be back to the Wikipedia, visting xfD everyday in addition. I was glad to see that you wrote a bit on why you opposed my nomination, unlike most. I understand your opinion, however I believe I will stay a firm believer of the possesion of academic credentials and number and quality of publications is definitely a plus, but a lack does not necessarily provide a negative impact. Many qualities can be used to make helpful generalizations, but when analyzing a single person, the generalizations should be thrown out. Do you have any tips or suggestions for me on being a good Wikipedian or administrator? Thanks again, X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)08:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. Though the RfA was unsuccessful, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you have a look at this?

Hi,

I do not understand how the discussion so much left from the core issue that has been recognized earlier (it has never been clear that GRB article or link in Ecological Economics do not belong in Wikipedia) now Calton got it to be about Spamlink, uncivil language (Provoked by him for a long time) and warnings here and there... We totally missed the issue is or is not information aboutGlobal Reserve Bank something that should be on Wikipedia or not? Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swedenborg (my talk) and please tell me what you think about it? --Swedenborg 03:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calton got furious :-0

Hi again,

Now Calton put my articles like ecotheology for deletion and attacking Swedish article about Ecological Economy, this is really bad stile and I do not feel good about this at all..--Swedenborg 03:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

You've been engaging in repeated edit warring at Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. Please pursue dispute resolution instead, or you may be temporarily blocked from editing. Dmcdevit·t 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant is not banned. In any case, the IP is being used for edit warring by itself, so it wouldn't be any kind of abusive sockpuppet use. It's clearly not vandalism. The only problem here is that the two of you are not pursuing dispute resolution. If you can prove that the other editor is clearly making edits against consensus, then this is cause for something like an RFC or arbitration, not edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You're only edits since the last block expired have been further reverts to the page. This is not a case of sockpuppetry, as there is only one editor reverting you; please read WP:SOCK. This is also clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. If the anon's edits are against consensus, then pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring with him. You have been blocked for another 24 hours. Dmcdevit·t 05:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't need an ultimatum. It's simple. Keep edit warring, and you will keep being blocked. All you have to do is pursue normal means, rather than edit warring. I've pointed this out to you. The edits made are clearly not vandalism or bad faith. What they are most clearly is edit warring, just as your edits are. If they are against consensus, this is not a reason to edit war, but a reason to seek help. If mediation fails, use RFC or arbitration. Use normal means, or keep edit warring and find yourself blocked: your choice. Dmcdevit·t 09:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are also attempting to start an edit war at Craig Roger Gregerson. I do surmise that if you would bother to check the references cited, you would find that Gregerson did indeed plead guilty to murder and kidnapping on Monday. Your petty feud/harassment/stalking of Chadbryant aside, you should at least attempt to edit in good faith, even on subjects you clearly lack knowledge in. 205.124.145.254 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the talk page at the Gregerson article. You need to fully investigate the matter before you once again insert incorrect information. Thank you. 67.2.139.221 10:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This will be of interest to you

The end of an era quite possibly [4] 81.155.178.248 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chad

Thanks for the heads up. He needs to find better things to do with his time than annoy people. DXRAW 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear.... [5] One Night In Hackney 04:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Who wants to request a checkuser? DXRAW 06:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well volunteered ;) I'd do it myself, but I'm not overly sure of how it works and plenty seem to get declined. One Night In Hackney 06:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Same here. DXRAW 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possible sock? PizzaAzzip DXRAW 06:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just wanted to say thank you for helping me out. DXRAW 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your trolling on RSPW entry

Your trolling on the RSPW deletion entry is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards and is obviously nothing more than a personal attack on one or more users. Please cease such behavior immediately before you find yourself on the unpleasant end of an administrator's banning abilities. You will be reported to multiple admins should your behavior continue. --Thad Tryant 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WOW another Chad Bryant sock.....hilarious! Im not going to delete this its so funny. TruthCrusader 09:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Not one but multiple admins! I like also how he says you will be "on the unpleasant end of an administrator's banning abilities" Chad has had many experiences with that one. DXRAW 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be because it will take reporting this to several before he finds one "green" enough to block for this. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Completely unacceptable behavior

I am sure that you have read the personal attacks policy, including the part about Off-wiki personal attacks. Your behavior here is completely unacceptable and I would expect better of a long-term contributor such as yourself. Comments such as "we beat the fat mormon niggerstain before" are extremely offensive, and you cannot attack any Wikipedia contributor at any point, on or off-wiki, including contributors who have been banned. —Mets501 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that was SO obviously me.

  • rolls eyes*

TruthCrusader 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehu Eyre

Hi. I'm a relatively new contributer to Wikipedia, and recently stumbled across an article that interested me about the Revolutionary War. I looked up more sources on the subject and posted them, along with the facts stated in those sources. The article is now tagged as a possible hoax, and I am searching for objective analysis of it from multiple users. If you could please take a look, and urge others to take a look as well, I'd be very grateful.

SwedishConqueror 20:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/u/User_talk%7ETruthCrusader_2bfa.html"