User talk:Llort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rick Bruner 2 Reasons for PRODding Mark Moya 3 Wellington College, Berkshire 4 Swampy 5 Wushu 6 Vandalism on Music 7 VandalProof 1.2 Now Available 8 Wikidefender Barnstar Awarded!!! 9 Thanks 10 Lindsey Graham 11 Thanks 12 Sorry 13 My User Page 14 User:Syria Almighty 15 Thanks 16 Bloody 'ell... 17 Re: My user page 18 gracias 19 Thanks, and sorry 20 Thanks! 21 Re: Thank you 22 I did not vandalize Wikipedia 23 Vandal on Martin Luther 24 re: bad boys blue 25 st pauli 26 Truck revert 27 Can you look at the article Dissolve? 28 Korn

[edit] Rick Bruner

go to www.pimp4aday.com. It is a great website for history information with games. I see your point. I took that into consideration when I decided it didn't fit the criteria for speedy deletions. Note that WP:NOT is not a criteria for speedy deletion. If you feel that it doesn't belong, you could always put a {{PROD|REASON}} or tag it for deletion. However, when I was reading through it, I felt it fits the criteria for notability. You could add a POV tag to it if you feel it is not in a nuetral point of view, which is unlikely considering the author himself is writing about himself. Pepsidrinka 02:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for PRODding Mark Moya

When you proposed the article Mark Moya for deletion, you gave the edit summary (Duplicate article & nn). The nn part I understand, but what does the Duplicate article refer to? Lambiam^Talk 06:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wellington College, Berkshire

Hello. I see you reverted 137.222.10.67's change to the above article[1] as vandalism. However it doesn't 100% look like vandalism to me. OR, maybe, or at the least uncited, but as the entire section on slang is unsourced, it's unsurprising, given the context. The revert itself I have no problem with, but the edit summary was quite harsh, given that it might not be vandalism! Regards, MartinRe 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swampy

Oh, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.192.185 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Wushu

I see you continue to edit my contribution to wikipedia, this is not your right considering the basis behind my contribution. It is not vandalism and is a valid contribution. Therefore i will continue to edit it back in its rightful place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.131.97 (talk • contribs)

Sadly, by doing this you are in violation of the three revert rule - WP:3RR --Llort 03:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

so you somehow have the ability to pull rank, i think not, this is a public realm. the whole idea of wikipedia is to collect peoples contributions, freedom of speech anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.131.97 (talk • contribs)

I don't need to "pull rank" as you put it. I have simply notified the admins of your violation of the 3RR rule. I don't need to concern myself with this edit war, and can leave the matter in their hands. -- Llort (talk · contribs)

i suggest you visit the discussion page before you continue reverting. btw, i am reporting you to the admin board for repeated abuse of the reverting process.--Subwaynz 11:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you continue to ignore the guideline of WP:Consensus, I and other editors will continue to revert your non-encyclopedic edits...

[edit] Vandalism on Music

Thanks you for catching vandalism on Music. Daniel5127, 01:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 :-) --Llort 01:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

[edit] Wikidefender Barnstar Awarded!!!

You deserve it. Keep up the GREAT work!!! Kukini 17:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

...for reverting vandalism to my user page. Cheers. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Reyk _YO! 06:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsey Graham

I noticed you helped revert an edit by User:72.242.65.58 here yesterday. Can you provide further help - the vandalism and POV edits persist]. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• 09:50, June 6, 2006 Syrthiss blocked "72.242.65.58 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism, was warned)

Good deal. I'll keep this page on my watchlist though just to be safe. --Llort 14:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I was just cleaning up the popup timing error when you beat me to it. Best, Kukini 16:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry about the UT2007 page, I coulda swore I saw somewhere that it was confirmed for Xbox 360.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.26.46 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I reverted you change because you unintentionally blanked out the "Gameplay", "Weapons", and part of the "Vehicles" sections with your edit. --Llort 02:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My User Page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Timrem 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Syria Almighty

When you reverted, you reverted to a vandalized form of the page. I corrected it, but just an FYI.--Toffile 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page from vandalism. It's much appreciated. Baseball,Baby! ^{take a swing} 17:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody 'ell...

If I see Iain Lee's face one more time I swear I'll go mad! ;D Kedi the tramp 16:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I keep image loading off, so no problems for me! --Llort 16:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for clearing my page. (: Kedi the tramp 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: My user page

Re: your message: No problem! - Tapir Terrific 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gracias

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! Have a great day. Alphachimp ^talk 18:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What he said.--Andeh 19:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, and sorry

Firstly, sorry for not responding before now - I only just realised. Thanks for reverting my user page when 64.12.116.198 vandalised it. Keep up the good work! Daniel.Bryant (aka Killfest2) 08:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

A little late, but thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Yanksox 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thank you

Re: your message: Right back atchya! - Tapir Terrific 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I did not vandalize Wikipedia

My edits are documented and veriable fact. In the future, please consult an admin before removing legitimate contributions without proper consideration. -70.107.65.109 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For future reference of anyone else reading this, edits to other users' User Pages like this one [2] are blatant vandalism, and I will continue to revert them as such. --Llort 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal on Martin Luther

FYI, your warning to User:86.198.190.30 didn't stick. See recent addition of "constipation" and "chitty chitty bang bang" to the article. Said article is in the midst of a Thirty Years Editing War, and does not cherish amateurs meddling. Perhaps something can be done to divert this lad's obsessions to more useful pursuits?--Mantanmoreland 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: bad boys blue

hi, yes there is a problem with the content. the info is presented in a very biased way and does not constitute the actual chronology of events pertinent to the band and its members' reshufflings. the person who created this page is affiliated with the least noticeable band member and he keeps this nonsense as the real deal. this page either should be edited or deleted all together rather than continuing to display this disinformation.

(This was a response to me) 192.75.48.150 17:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] st pauli

hi, i just registered to communicate with you. i don't see no reason why the edit should not be... the sentence the way it is in wiki is incomplete and corny littmann is indeed out and proud! maybe you misinterpreted this as homophobia but you couldn't be more wrong. a) i'm pro gay and b) i'm a st pauli supporter myself :) Janvanbasten 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit you are referring to is here - [3]. What I saw - an anonymous IP leaving no edit summary and only adding "is openly gay" to the article. What I missed is the fact that it already had a citation linked to the BBC. So while it was an honest mistake on my part, please try to include edit summaries for the rest of us. If you make the change to the article again, I will not oppose it. Sorry :-) --Llort 17:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

i reedited it. sorry for not doing a summary and thanks for fighting homophobia on wikipedia! :) Janvanbasten 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truck revert

Hi there -- perhaps I have missed some policy changes, but it had been considered acceptable in the past to revert vandalism-like changes to a additional articles after someone (especially an anon IP) has been vandaliszing and has beem warned. The addition of "human" to beginning of truck seemed just the same as the addition of a random number to the beginning of that IEEE article. Please advise me on what you think, as I do take an accusation of violating policy rather seriously. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied here. --Llort 12:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Llort. I now see what you mean. I've been inactive for a while, so I'm trying to be sensitive, but I was oversensitive in this case. Also, I haven't been around for the development of many of the automated editing tools, so I didn't really grasp the "good faith" part, but it is now clear. I'm sorry to have bothered you about it. Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 12:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Crossposted to User talk:Bcorr

[edit] Can you look at the article Dissolve?

Not sure if I should revert or not a second time. Thanks! -Zephyr2k 17:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that easily falls under obvious vandalism, and you'd be justified in reverting it as many times as needed. --Llort 17:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! -Zephyr2k 17:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korn

Excuse me. I am very confused as to why you reverted my edits to the Korn page. Are they not true ? Now, there is a fine line between fact and opinion, but what I wrote was pure fact. For example:

The Korn album is crap : it didn't sell many copies, this is proof beyond reasonable doubt of it being crap.

Davis is obsessed with little boys : proof of this is the fact that a little boy appears in the cover art of most of his albums. This would indicate the obsession.

Now I know I wrote it in a vulgar style, but I feel this point should be made in the article to improve its qualtiy and inform people more accurately. The point could be made as following ,'Korn doesn't sell many copies' or 'little boys appear on many of their albums'. This would make the point and differentiate fact from opinion.