User talk:Surv1v4l1st

Leave a new message.

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I look forward to helping with the project. :) Surv1v4l1st(Talk|Contribs) 03:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to "Van Buren Boys"

While I appreciate your vigilance on vandalism, my edit was neither vandalism nor incorrect. In the quote you relabeled George is speaking about Jerry's girlfriend Ellen in the quote, comparing her role in her group to Elaine's role in their own group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.242.177 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current parenthetical statement is ambiguous. Depending on how you read it, it could refer to either person. I'm going to reword it to avoid confusion. Thanks for your note. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ross

I have started a discussion on the Bob Ross page concerning bringing back a trivia section ("Bob Ross in Popular Culture"). Please visit the Bob Ross Discussion page and contribute your opinion. Proxy User (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. :) Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to categorise your new articles

Greetings, thanks for the FAMAE revolver article! But don't forget to add categories to your new articles, otherwise they disappear into WP:UNCAT and someone else (who might not know much about guns) will have to jam them into a category and hope it fits. I've added the following cats to your article, feel free to refine them: Category:Revolvers Category:Weapons of Chile Category:Police weapons Looking forward to seeing more (categorised ;) ) gun articles! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Forgot the category on that one. Thanks for catching it and adding them. I appreciate the assistance. :) Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganglion Cyst article

I removed comments calling the use of a family Bible to treat Bible cysts an "urban legend." An urban legend, by definition, is something untrue that has been told as truth.

In fact, hitting the cyst with a Bible HAS been used successfully in patients as an actual treatment for ganglion cysts. I myself have treated some cysts by simply giving them a firm squeeze, rupturing the cyst. So although we don't have statistics cerca 1900 (and never will), it stands to reason that using the family Bible would be a common practice 50, 100, or 300 years ago when surgical options were not widely available. In addition, I have heard firsthand from patients and several older physicians that they have seen this work in actual practice.

So, calling it an urban legend is an error that I corrected. I'm not sure why you took it upon yourself to revert the article, since--as you noted--it was a minor change. But I was right in saying that it is not an urban legend. I feel it is somewhat silly for me to have to spend 15 minutes clarifying all of this to one individual over a few words in a simple article contribution, and I (like most people) will no longer want to contribute to the knowledgebase if all of my contributions are micro-managed or over-scrutinized.

216.186.224.74 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Dr. Barry Jordan, MD, Evans, Ga.[reply]

Thank you for your note. The reason why your revision was reverted was that you changed a sourced statement, but left the source intact. The article says one thing, while the source something completely different. If you would like to change the article, please provide a reliable source for the information. Also, please be aware that your own experiences are considered original sources which would not meet verifiability.

Parenthetically, I do believe you are correct in that it was once a common practice. I don't, however, have a source at the moment. I can think of at least one medical text in my library that might, but that's about it. If you have one, please feel free to change the article in question.

Here is hoping you stick around and contribute. If I can be of any assistance, please drop me a note. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mennonites in Puerto Rico

Your wish is my command, it is Done! I added some info. in regard to the Mennonites in Puerto Rico in the article which I wrote German immigration to Puerto Rico. Thank you for the suggestion. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind note and the additions. :) --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for pointing out the mistake

yes your right. it was an error on my part. i had just got home from work, and was extremely tired when i checked that edit. in my state, i must have read it the other way around and thought i was removing the vandalism. ty for correcting that

Thanks for the kind note and clarification. Also, please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages. :) Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 216.73.149.66

Thanks for the note. It's bizarre - there are two IPs who seem obsessed with making that same edit over and over again, for almost a year now. I put in a block as there has certainly been plenty of warning.--Kubigula (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for handling them. Indeed, it is nothing short of bizarre that the IP editors persists with those edits. Thanks again. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic Death Metal

What part of that 'article' is convincing to you? Do you somehow think you are intellectual by entertaining such nonsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.89.46 (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PN. The article does need a clean up, but the tag you added was totally inappropriate. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superduty

Hello, I have been trying to edit the Superduty article as best I can. I seen you have also been helping cleaning it up. Would you care to assist me in this effort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana60Cummins (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I assume you mean the Ford Super Duty article. I did a little clean up a while back and will try to help if I can. Is there any area that you think needs improvement? By the way, please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is not vandalism

that picture is deneaning and racist racist towards white women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.225.163 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is included in the article based upon consensus and your removal is indeed vandalism. Please stop your disruptive edits or you will be blocked. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what consensus? I don't see any consensus, just you being racist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.225.163 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images for the Zombie Panic! Source page

Surv1v4l1st,

I do not have a problem with you uploading images of ZPS to wikipedia. However, if you could use an official screenshot (found on our website and on our ModDB page), that would work best. Preferably one without any chat in it, I would think.

--Frikazoyd (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and the permission. If you can help with selecting and preparing the fair use verbiage, that would be great too. Also, totally agree we should have the official logo and the screenshots should not have any chat in it. I'm thinking one of the human and one of the zombie HUD would work well. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to anal oral sex

I didn't change anything, and didn't vandalize anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.239.39 (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone from your IP most certainly did. Hence the warning. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templating

Please to not template people unless you know what you are talking about. This could be considered rude by some people. --91.55.218.42 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the References section on Transuranium element twice. Not to mention your use of the word "Idiots" in the edit summary might also be considered rude. The warning was more than justified. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hello Surv1v4l1st, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 01:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'll check out the link. :) Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

including subst: with warning templates

The warnings you have been leaving do not appear to use the subst: function marker as per WP:warn. I think it's required and just to let you know you might have forgotten. Nasnema Chat 23:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and heads up. I'll double check the formatting on WP:WARN per your request. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific War

I've noticed your edits in Allies of World War II and I'm seeking a second opinion regarding the combatants template. I'm trying to keep it consistent with the heading at "Allies" as well as with other theatres of the war (like Western Front (World War II) where Luxembourg is listed). Unfortunately, some editors keep reverting my edits apparently with bias. I'm hoping you could give a second opinion regarding Canada, New Zealand, India, and the Philippines. Thanks.--119.95.7.96 (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]