User talk:P.B. Pilhet/Archive-Feb2007

Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).

The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places:

Page history - list of changes to the page you edited
User contributions - list of all your edits
Watchlist* - list of recent changes to watched pages (logged-in users only)
diff page - shows the difference between two edits
Recent changes - list of all recent edits
Wikipedia IRC channels - real time list of all edits
Related changes - list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited
List of new pages: shows the edit summary of the creation.

* Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.

Will (Talk - contribs) 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for reverting vandalism on my user page! --Goochelaar 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Reports to AIV

Thanks for helping revert vandalism, but I've noticed that with a few of your recent reports to AIV, that the vandal was not properly warned. Please make sure that the vandal has had the full set of warnings that day and has vandalized since the last warning before reporting them to AIV. -- Gogo Dodo 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: An example would be the report for 63.88.37.224 [1]. You are correct that the IP was blocked before, but the assumption is that with IPs, it might be a new person unless the edits with the previous block are similar. The vandal had not done any edits since the last warning issued by another editor. -- Gogo Dodo 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: No problem. Thanks for helping out. Keep up the good work. =) -- Gogo Dodo 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newb

I am new, and those two things were something I didn't clearly realize. I just figured the talk was whatever fit better, and not that they went in a specific order, so that is good to know. I will watch out for both the next time. Thanks.--Tickkid 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

darn it :-)

This is the 2nd or third time. Ive checked the history after a rv/undo and saw my name then went to paste the warning and there is one from you already. :-) I suppose its all good afterall we on the same side taking care of the messes made on here. See you around. (example User talk:70.123.90.229)--Xiahou 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

  Ya I was just experimenting , just to see what would happen > Im Sorry. Wont happen again.

Thanks, B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.102.32 (talk • contribs).

Who are you?

Quit changing my edits, or at least add to them. If you have an opinion, add it. Otherwise, back off. MichaelSavageConservative 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling me a vandal now? I just clicked the edit link. The same edit link that's on every single page. You want to see vandalism, look at all the non-truth being written on these people that's being passed off as truth. If you give a damn about the integrity of Wikipedia, you'll at least do your homework. MichaelSavageConservative 00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Son, you're too young and stupid to tell me that you know enough to claim what is vandalism and what isn't. I suggest you go do your put the computer down and do your homework. You can play on the weekend when school lets out. MichaelSavageConservative 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on MichaelSavageConservative, back the fuck off! MichaelSavageConservative 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MichaelSavageConservative

Hello, P.B. Pilhet - I spotted MichaelSavageConservative's similar POV-pushing edits over on Democracy Now! and Amy Goodman (both of which I have watchlisted). Then I took a look at his "contributions" and discovered his trail of POV edits on Juan Gonzalez. Whew!

Judging by the, um, savage tenor of his remarks, it occurs to me that this user is either parodying the style of the notorious right-wing talk show host Michael Savage -- or quite possibly, he is Michael Savage. In light of his seeming fixation on the radio program Democracy Now!, etc. that strikes me as a distinct possibility. Whatever the case, the question needs to be answered, under WP policy re using the name of a well-known living person as a username. This could get interesting... :) Cgingold 13:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valiant work in stopping these unfounded smears of Gonzalez by User:MichaelSavageConservative. Dogru144 03:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Thank you for experimenting with the page Category:Racist on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

please be more careful, this was a legitmat tagging with {{db-atack}} that i mispelt, thanks Benon 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think youll find that was the [2] vandal creator of the page , i can see from the diff [3] that it certainly wasnt me, thanks Benon 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, im guessing your using vandalproof, whilst this is a very good tool I have found vandalproof2 with its large global white and balcklists to be much more effective (im an old hand at rc patrolling ;) ), heck i still rember and do this by hand with popups and manually typing warnings Benon 04:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandal proof 2 is here Wikipedia:VP2, it is slightly diffrent in the respect that it "pools" all suspect edits so your not duplicating your efforts, you need accses to irc to use it though and approval from a "moderator", which is usually a formality. If you ever need any help with rc patrolling or anything wiki in genral my talk page is always open. Also you may be intrested in using the antivandalism channel on irc.freenode.net #vandalism-en-wp where pgkbot reports suspect edits and you can easily contact an avalible admin, again it is "moderated", however again this is usually just a formaltiy and a one time thing. Have fun. And rember we all make mistakes! (just look back in my talk page archives ;) ) :) Benon 13:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rc patrol and WP:AIV

Hey! Thanks for your good work with vandalism patrol and reporting vandals to WP:AIV. Unfortunatly, many of the vandals you have been reporting are not getting blocked. This is often because they have not had a recent final warnings (in the case of IP vandals, often within the previous hour or so). If there is not at least a final warnings ({{Test4}} or a {{bv}} or some other appropriate final warning, the vandal will almost never be blocked. As well, if a vandal ceased vandalism after receiving a final warning, they will also not be blocked! So, just make sure that vandals who are report have vandalized PAST the final warning, and have not just been issued one. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all of the excellent work you do on vandalism patrol, here ya go!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Chrislk02, awared you this anti vandalism barstar for the excellent work you do catching and reverting vandalism. Keep up the good work it is much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few I have noticed. [4] shows the last edit at 17:11. your last warning is at 17:12. They have not edited since. That is the only one i can find short of perusing wp aiv history. In the future, I will point a few out if you so desire! Thanks again for your hard work (I know it can be frustrating!) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one I just noticed [5]. This user has not had a warnings today (feb 2) and has not had a final warning since (17 jan). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldent call them mistakes. And, there are some administrators that will make that block (as alphachimp did). Overall you do a great job and it is much aprpeciated! Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

You have been here for a little while, you have 2266 edits at the time I am writing this. First off, that is a decent amount but many people in RFA like to see alot more than that. I personally had over 14,000 edits with 6,000 mainspace edits before mine succeded. (My first one failed because they thought I was too new and I had 10,000 edits at that time). However, edits are not always the most important. Unfortunatley, significant mainespace contributions can make up for a lower edit count. In your case, you could use some more mainspace contributions. Find a topic you like and work on expanding articles in that ctegory (for me, I joing wiki project aircraft and got pretty involved in community discussion etc etc. I see you have some involvement in discussions. That is a pretty good thing. what i reccomend is that you spend a bit of every day perusing deletions and adding good comments behind your Delete or Keep noms. Another thing that really helps is having a very high accuracy rate at WP:AIV. That is one of the things that led Husond to nominate me (as far as I know). This is just the tip of the iceberg but a good starting place. I think in the future you would make a great administrator but as of now I feel you would currently fail if you put yourself up for RFA. Hope this helped! If you have any more questions or need any more advice, second opinions, etc etc please feel free to let me know on my user talk page -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If at any point you would like an outside opinion on your progress, please feel free to let you know! I am here to help you so if there is anything I can do, please let me know. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha...hahaha

I just read your conversation with the user "WilliamJoel2" and find it quite hilarious. Either he is a complete and all out jackass (Not a swear word, it's used in the Bible, my friend) or is just having a bad intellectual day. Meh.

Now, I realize you caught me; I originally came from Encyclopedia Dramatica (OMG beeg shox0rz) and am sick today. I decided to troll WIKIpedia, as there is not too many people searching my exact trolls out of the 1,000,000,000+ articles.

Now, I do have a question for you; how can you believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution does not compromise the validity of Christian beliefs in the scientific realm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.164.138 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied on your IP talk page. -- 04:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Again !

Hi again :)

If im correct I think someone has vandalised this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter about Catalytic Converters , near the start. Get back to me if im right ?

B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.102.32 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied on your IP talk page. -- 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Super Twins

This I assume was an accident? It was a proper AfD and not a prod so there was no need to remove it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Figured it was just an accident. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

But the problem is that Darwin believed everything came from a common ancestor. To clarify this statement: humans, dolphins, turtles, pigs, goats, sharks, whales, mice...everything came from one animal. If it were to be proved true, that means that the Bible's Genisis belief system would crumble. Evolution and the Bible can't, in almost every way, go hand in hand. The Christian faith (Which I am involved non-denominationaly in) believes God created each animal specifially, so how can Darwin's scientific beliefs cooexist with ours? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.164.138 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What is this about?

May I ask how exactly I vandalized the coming of age article? Firstly, all I did was merge the Australia/New Zealand section with the United Kingdom section because they were virtually the same, other than the fact that the Australia/New Zealand part was needlessly repeating the same thing over and over. Secondly, my change wasn't even reverted? What is this all about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.168.105.181 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Noel Edmonds

I have never contributed to that page, positively or otherwise. I'm using my university's wireless hub, would that have something to do with the apparent shared IP? --194.82.45.23 02:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglia Ruskin University. --194.82.45.23 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Turbines

P read the press release AKA corporate dossier AKA spam that you reverted. It is not a legitimate article. I found it in the category entitled "Quality." This non-relevant placement is further indication that the piece is spam, not an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.210.149.127 (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Salk School

Hi,

I noticed that you contributed to the AfD debate on this school. I have made a contribution to this debate in which I discuss why the school is notable, and edited the article a bit. Any comments you could make would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your help with this.

Sincerely,

WMMartin 15:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:Jboyler

Yes, I think that is a bit over the line. I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn; I'd have to look at the policy. But if it's there simply to incite trouble, which it seems to be, that would constitute interruption of the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I can't quote specific policy right now; I'll try to look at it this afternoon. --DanielCD 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Deletion of Article: Upstate New York Cosplay Society

Hello, My name is Alyssa Fluty and I have been working 2 solid days to clean up the article on UNYCS. Our organization was rather annoyed at the blaten mis representation of the club via its onriginal posting. I wish to try my best to keep this article up because the Upstate New york Cosplay Society is a noteable part in anime conventions and cosplay. If there is somthing wrong, somthing you wish to point out please let me know and i will quickly fix it.

~Alyssa Fluty Vice President of the Upstate New york Cosplay Society —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fireicefalcon (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Hey!

I just felt like saying hey! --I'm Working for Him 01:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA

Word of thanks for P.B. Pilhet
Good morning (GMT time); I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, taking a neutral stance to, closing, suggesting I close or otherwise contributing to my recent RfA; unfortunately, I felt that although there were more support than oppose votes, the weight of the latter was too great for me to accept the promotion with so many not trusting me with the janitor's trolley -

I therefore decided to end my nomination prematurely. The feedback I received was invaluable, and I am striving to start afresh with all of the advice my fellow Wikipedians offered. In order to meet the aim of adapting to your advice, I've drew up a list of aims (located here) which I intend to follow from this point onwards.

If you have any further advice or comments for me, don't hesitate to post me a message

at my talk page where it will be graciously and humbly accepted. Once again, thank you and I do hope to bump into you around the encyclopedia!

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]}

Behavioural Aims:

edit

User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Behavioural

Participation Aims:

edit

User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Participation

Don't hesitate to add to these - just drop me a message so I know!

I almost put the heading as "My Love" after reading your header :P Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Nom

Malber would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Malber to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/P.B. Pilhet 2nd Nomination. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Were you going to sign your acceptance and place it on the main RfA page? —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 16:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom and such

Whoa, sorry it took a while to get back to you. I am currently on Wikibreak, as school has been eating up much of my free time. I have added my co-nom to your RFA. I would suggest that you ask the other users who wish to co-nom you to also put their co-noms up. Hope all goes well with the RFA,

S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for understanding

Hi P.B., thanks for understanding why I opposed your RfA and for not taking it personally. Just remember, it's not a comment about you as a person, but my opinion of what qualifications an administrator should have. Regardless of how your RfA turns out, I hope that you will continue to fight vandalism here on Wikipedia, you're a good guy and your efforts are appreciated. --Kyoko 07:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

rfa thanks

Thanks for the support on my RFA. It passed successfully with just under WP:100 supports and 1 oppose. I look forward to serving the community as an admin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Happy Birthday!

The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day.

Have a great day on behalf of WP:BDC. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, P.B. Pilhet/Archive-Feb2007, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

May this birthday be a wonderful day, May your fondest wish come true. Pea ceNT 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

Kamope·?·! Sign! 12:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work, Pilhet. I am pretty sure you'll make it next time soon :-) Pea ceNT 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]