User talk:Huntthetroll

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on your talk page, unless you request otherwise.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

Hello, Huntthetroll, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is editing Ask.com

I deleted repeated information and it was reverted. What nutjob thinks that something like that is vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.34.147 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about reverting your last edit. It was a mistake. It should be speedy deleted. Techman224^Talk 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:64.74.153.18

Looks like the IP hopped around a bit while I had to step out for a bit. I blocked the two other IPs that were blanking the page, under the pretense that it's the same user. Hopefully, that will be it. — TKD::Talk 07:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late or early

Are you up late or up early. It is past 4:00 am in NJ. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both. I would have gone to bed, but I was up much of the night helping fight off a massive, coordinated vandal attack. Huntthetroll (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steeler Nation

Thanks for keeping an eye on Steeler Nation. It looks like you're dealing with some IP vandals of your own. Godspeed.

Bdb484 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Ventura

Thanks for your kind tone, obviously I'm still learning how things work here. I poked around a little on the site before I did the edit, and from what I found, I thought I was following what I saw here and here. But again, I may be mistaken if I missed a policy or 12 (there seems to be a lot!). Thanks again for being kind about it! 75.72.98.95 (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Symphony X

See this. You should understand what I mean after you read the discussion (and also past ones) there. FireCrystal (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding and no problem. :) FireCrystal (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, the band shouldn't be encouraged to label themselves whatever they want because they are a self-published source so another source should take its place. The influences bit in the intro should be enough to cover that they are indeed influenced by these artists but as a source for a genre they play — I don't think so. FireCrystal (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Good luck finding one though. You'll have to dig deep. FireCrystal (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, nice finds. I didn't expect a result to pop up that quick. FireCrystal (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is there to deal with limited reviewer resources. We don't enforce unless it is a repeat offense, so no worries (although you are very welcome to comment on some other peer review requests ;-) ). Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for peer review of Lahore

Thanks for the peer review of Lahore.It will be quite helpful for it editors.User:Yousaf465

Universal Energy Corporation

Hi there - I edited this as you have links that are no correct (as in Universal Energy Corp in the U.S. which is not related to UEC in Toronto Canada). I a rewriting the desc so it is not promotional but factual. Many thanks

Jan D. Nybida —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.103.147 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take on Me

Thank you for reviewing the article. I corrected the things in the lead, and removed some parts that were repeated. Please let me know if you have other suggestions or comments. Do you think is ready for GA? I wonder if the cover versions need to be more detailed? Again thanks for the review. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for all your help. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Huntthetroll. You have new messages at Cannibaloki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Canniba loki 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

A User that you gave a final warning to has been up to no good yet again, if there is a formal way to request the blocking of an IP adress I am unaware, as it currently stands, the vandal has gone unpunished and I have no authority to do anything about it. Also, if there is a formal way to request a ban I would like a headsup on my talk page. Thanks. Kilshin (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal

Hello Huntthetroll, you have received this notice because you have placed your name on the list of members of WikiProject Metal. We are currently looking to make the wikiproject more active, and in doing so, we need to have a list of active members on the wikiproject. If you wish to stay an active part of wikiproject metal, please add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Active Users. Conversely, if you wish to leave the wikiproject, please remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Members. Thank you.

An "incident" with which I've been involved

What "incident" is that? Is it another instance where I've dared to replace (or complement) incorrect nonsense with rigidly correct content but, sadly, it's disagreed with the politics of your supposedly nonexistent corporate sponsors?

I seem to recall being carped at more than once that I didn't "provide a reference." Since when are references required for common sense? I see technology material all over the place without references. Perhaps the statement "Washington is the capital of the United States" requires a reference.

Please ANSWER, not provide generic drivel about "vandalism." I don't frankly believe you people have the first clue what vandalism is.

50.128.184.140 (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the editor, but pasting RANTING over content on the page I follow had ZERO encyclopedic value and falls within Wiki definition of vandalism. The issue is not what you are saying is necessary wrong, the issue is that Wiki is not your blog to post rants. You have to post in a neutral and factual manner. Ranting is easy, posting factual articles is hard. KnowS (talk)

Not doing one's duties

Perhaps you should investigate a contributor's credentials before determining whether he is the "sole arbiter of knowledge" (which I never said). Yet, I am unquestionably far more expert in these matters than these half-assed also-rans who propound their shockingly limited command of technical material, colored (as if so required) by given vendors' mantras.

I wonder how many of your "valued contributors" to, for example, computer security articles have their names plastered all over Department of Defense standards or have built high-assurance trusted OS and RDBMS with their own handsas I have. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater because you find his arrogance to be overpowering: just tone it down as (what did they term you?) an editor or mediator or some such. Perhapsjust perhapssomeone speaks with authority because he IS an authority.

Let's take an example. I edited Cloud computing by adding some well-argued disadvantages. DID YOU NOTICE THAT THERE WERE ONLY ADVANTAGES LISTED? Who ever heard of a technology that offers advantages only, with zero disadvantages? This is naught but utter nonsense.

What's truly ironic is that, if I try to be a "nice guy" by leaving the erroneous material in place (instead of flatly deleting it) and just adding, "It can alternatively be argued that [such and such]," the editors seem to perceive that as useful. Gosh, when I went to grammar school, I learned that a paragraph should not contradict itself from one sentence to the next.

It's no wonder that those friends and associates of mine who are acknowledged experts in their respective fields wouldn't condescend to contribute the first um, er, or punctuation mark to Wikipedia. ONE GETS WHAT ONE PAYS FOR!

I await your valid counter-argument.

BruceDavidWilner (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with common criteria page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_criteria was vandalized again. You reverted last round, please do so again. It is multiple comments and I am not Wiki-literate enough to understand how to easily undo multiple changes. Thank you. KnowS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]