Trelane

Welcome

Hello, Trelane, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to List of terrorist incidents, 2011, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll see you before the arbcom before I allow you to continue to degrade articles on Wikipedia. Trelane (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, there is the link. Please do it right now. O Fenian (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, 2011

No probs ;) Its happened before. he thinks he owns every terrorism article (particularly where the IRA are concerned) and can scare people off with his bullying.(Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)).

He is again hijacking the page to stop discussion. what is the next avenue of DR? if you start it ill support you. as can be seen the reverters have not attempted to discuss the issue onthe talk page.

See: WP:RFCCLihaas (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

update: ive tried RFC. Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011#CriteriaLihaas (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

have you tried the other avenues as hes clearly beign disruptive by "stamping his feet" and not attempting to discuss anything!

RFCC has a case: "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. " (emphasis added), weve told him to discuss the issue he keeps resorting to the same diktats.(Lihaas (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

Right now I'm working from a Reductio_ad_absurdum basis. Based on the false Consensus that terror "must be called such by a reliable source", I have listed the Wikileaks Diplomatic cable leaks, which were termed terror by both previous United States VP candidates, including the sitting VP Joe Biden. It has also been called terror by the current Majority Leader of the House Homeland Security Committee. This, and that both were carred by afp and other wire services are MORE than sufficient to qualify this horrible attack (what?) as terror under O Fenian's consensus. For what it's worth, I'm disturbed that this works to reduce the quality of articles on Wikipedia, but I note here that this is no more true than the unacceptable standard applied currently to what is/isn't terror. Trelane (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd also note that every time I attempted to contact him on his talk page he simply reverted. Trelane (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! you got the reason to show why thsi doesnt work (also see the page move part), you not have the edit summaries to show his diktats and refusal. 1. WE then have grounds to go ahead with our consensus and PROVE he doesnt discuss and takes diktats. you can cite to the the admin committee his reverts.

In addition or supplemantery tot he RFCC WP:INCIDENTS should definately work with the latest attempt to resolve.(Lihaas (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

strongest possible case of a tag-team army.[1](Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

You should try assuming good faith. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

once upon a time...olive branches are continually spurned.

anyway, Trelane, seems like the Arbcom suggestion to try other methods is failing as he/they still refuse to discuss issues and resort to threats/blackmail to get their way. Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011#lone_wolf_tag + yet gain: [2] + also see this

+ more tag team evidence: [3](Lihaas (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

can you see/comment on the disruptive user and his tag team User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#editor_issues(Lihaas (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_O_Fenian re-first step to the intervention you previously suggested.(Lihaas (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

LOL at the comment there. so we can then have an article on his ouster ;)(Lihaas (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

RFC

Can you see this vengeance mongering? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lihaas(Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

re WP:COI noticeboard and Christopher Monsanto

I would draw your attention to my comments following yours in the "Alice (programming_language)" section. Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks comments should be directed at the contributions and not the contributor, as an editor of your long experience should know. Please limit your opinions to that regarding violation of policy, guideline or practices in future. For the avoidance of doubt, please regard this as a level3 official warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

usually I wouldn't do this, but you, and Christopher are clearly in the wrong. So consider this a level3, very official, gold seal GO FUCK YOURSELF. Trelane (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted some of your edits

Feel free to put them back if you want to stand by them, but given the time of day and their content I considered there to be some chance they were made while under the influence, and if this was the case then best to cause as little trouble as possible... Egg Centric 10:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Egg Many thanks for looking out for me, however they were not made under the influence. I'm done with this place. Reading up should provide you some idea as to why, and I've chosen the time honored tradition of telling people exactly what I think on the way out. Trelane (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok Buddy... I understand where you're coming from. Best of luck. By the way, here's an edit you may find relevant although it's not the same in the particulars (not remotely, in fact) - [4]

It seems no one is going to ban ya anyway, and believe me LHVU is one of the good guys, but he's sadly bound by retarded policy; any time you come back you're welcome. But before that, see the link, and maybe everything will make sense Egg Centric 21:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents 2013 - your opinion is needed

I noticed you were active in a 2011 discussion considering some general guidelines on what to include in the list of terrorist incidents, how to phrase it, and how long to keep it, as well as what kind of attacks should be on the list (because we obviously can't have ALL of them, or even a large percentage). Since a few conflict points have surfaced in the last few months, I would like to invite you to share your opinion on an ongoing discussion between myself and User:Lihaas that is taking place over here. Of course, I'm not expecting you to take my side, but it would be great if more people can weigh in. I have copied this to the talk pages of other people who were previously involved in editing these articles.

read up, after being mistreated by wikipedia staff in 2011, I'm no longer active Trelane (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Funtoo Linux

The article Funtoo Linux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article lacks any third-party reliable sources; fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Aoidh (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Funtoo Linux for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Funtoo Linux is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funtoo Linux until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Aoidh (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Funtoo Linux for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Funtoo Linux is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funtoo Linux (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kleuske (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)