Jump to content

User talk:Philip Trueman/Archives/2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Incorrectly accusing me of vandalism

Why are you flagging me for vandalism? I corrected a link for WHT, and cleaned up some other pages. Hardly vandalism. Who are you anyway? Ill be checking your changes out as well. 69.140.51.137 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just removed your "vandalism" warning.

What I did was hardly vandalism. Adding a link to something called WHT (Wometco Home Theatre) on a page where something else is also known is WHT (William Herschel Telescope) is not vandalism. Kindly explain why you singled me and accused me of vandalism, when all I did was seek to clarify two seperate things known as WHT. 69.140.51.137 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept that you made your change to William Herschel Telescope in good faith, and that I misinterpreted what you were trying to do. My apologies. However, I hope you will accept that you did not go about it in the right way, and that David Underdown has since sorted things out properly. I would like to think that we have both learned something.

You can find out who I am from my user page. You are more than welcome to check out any changes I make. Philip Trueman 16:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting what I wrote. I agree with your assessment here as well. If I accidentally omitted something in the course of my edit, I do accept full responsibility. I am only human after all. Upon further checking I see that a mistake was made, and I do appreciate David Underdown's rectification of that.

However, I also think that if you are double checking work (which is an important and commendable thing to be doing) you should not be so quick to charge someone with vandalism without carefully considering they could be doing something helpful.

Vandalism is a dastardly deed here on Wikipedia, and branding someone a vandal is really a charge that should not be made lightly. More helpful would have been a simple revert or leaving a message to check my intentions, rather than being a self appointed judge, jury and executioner of my credibility within a quick moment. I think anyone who invests time into improving this site is due a bit of consideration in that regard.

That is just my 2 cents. I don't mean to detract from your good work here on Wikipedia. Best of luck to you in the future. 69.140.51.137 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Recurrent vandalism by 204.38.101.7

Philip Trueman wrote
Hi! User 204.38.101.7, blocked by Gurch on 20th December for repeated vandalism, seems to be at it again on the "French wine" page. Please accept my humble apologies if I've gone about reporting this the wrong way, I'm a complete newbie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Trueman (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. The user seems to have stopped, so I won't block them again for now.

The best way to handle vandalism is to first warn them about it (a quick way to do this is to add {{subst:test}} ~~~~ to their talk page), and then, if they continue despite warning, leave another more serious warning by adding {{subst:test4}} ~~~~ to their talk page. If they still persist, report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and an administrator will take the necessary action. (That page is watched by many administrators, so it's more efficient than only notifying one person).

Also, when posting to discussion pages, remember to type ~~~~ at the end of your message (as I've done in the examples above); this automatically signs your name and the date. Thanks – Gurch 17:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to revert any changes I have made? Do I know you? Is that the 'Wikipedian' way?

Hello

Fancy seeing you here. Since no-one else has given you the "official" welcome. Here it is:


Welcome!

Hello, Philip Trueman/Archives, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Have you looked at The Proms yet? David Underdown 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Bold text


HI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am hoping that you will join the few of us at the disney wikia. [1] We dont have alot of people there, so who ever we can get would be welcome. Want to know how small that thing is? I just now created a Jafar page. JUST NOW. and I became a member about a week ago. So umm....yeah, come help? thanks. My user name is the same as it is here. =]--AngelicDemon92 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:The actions of a certain casserole ...

Hey there! AIV is the best place to report vandals who need blocking after being given a level 4 warning. Your edit may get lost if someone else edited before you saved - so it's best to check after that your edit was saved. Keep up the vandal fighting efforts :-) --Sagaciousuk (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Liger

Semi-protection prevents newly registered users (accounts less than 4 days old) and IPs from editing the page. That user who vandalized has been here longer than that, so just revert and warn him for his vandalism. Nishkid64 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk page vandalism

Philip Trueman said: for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Is having your talk page vandalised a sign you've been doing something right?

Hi there. You are absolutely welcome. To have your user talk page vandalized, means that you've probably done something either so grossly correct that a vandal would take note of it, or so pifflingly, un-noticeably incorrect that only a vandal would follow it up and vandalize your page.

One of the two. Have a good day. Bobo. 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re ..Gibraltar

Hi Philip,

...deleting "KBE". ...I don't think so. There are lots of other orders of knighthood...

Fair enough; have restored the "KBE". If/when he's given more letters, I guess a new line will be needed!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism today, you are 100% correct. --Gibnews 15:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

H0tflick

A, i already reverted them. B, that was probably on ok palce to report them, they were on a roll. There are a couple of things that should have been done though. They should have ben warned with one of the series of spam templates {{spam1}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}} or {{spam4}} (which i did warn them with and they did not stop). Also, there username could violate WP:USERNAME which could be reported to WP:RFCN. I also posted a message about it at the administrators notice board WP:ANI to see what other admin think. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PC as post-nominal letters

See Privy Council of the United Kingdom, specifically the first paragraph of the section "Rights and privileges of members". — Wereon 21:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Enumerated lists

CmdrObot's change to National Registry of Identification and Civil Status has replaced some hard-coded numbered lists with enumerated lists. Is it just me, or do all the numbers appear as '1' now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Trueman (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, forgot to sign. Not having a good day. Philip Trueman 12:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Phil, yes, you're completely right, and I should have noticed it when I made the edit in the first place. My apologies. I've fixed up the numbering by removing the empty lines between each item. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


==================

I have no idea how to use this so....whoops if it looks wired. you sent my an e-mail thingy saying i was vanadlising but Honsest i reli di fink dat was true! I was only seven when i wrote it but im 8 now so i know better!! It was about Ethelred the Unready.....being unready :P SORRY ur e-mail just got me annoyed tho Cos i did reli fink it was true. So i have to say i fink dat the Vandalism e-mail r a gd idea ..but they wont work i dont fink....... sozzy again ...

===============================

Gibraltar NPOV

I have a huge respect for active wikipedists. I have made just a few corrections here and there (mainly in technical articles (no oppinion problem :)) and I know it is hard. But really, think for a moment that you are, say, from Japan and read the Gibraltar page. The obvious conclusion is that Gibraltar was more or less given by God to the British and that they have to suffer the bothering from Spain ever since. It is not objective. The claims from Spain are not explained or even mentioned. The UN actions and resolutions are not considered. I see 2 major issues (I can give you as many references as you want) 1.- The isthmus was not given in property by the Utrecht Treaty. Later on a neutral area covering the istmus was established. It was occupied later and the airport built on it. This is the reason for a lot of problem about air space in Europe, as it is (according to Spain, if you wish) a British airport in Spanish territory (It is not in the territory given in the Treaty). Other issues are with respect to air and sea space (try to land or dock in Gibraltar without touching Spanish territory). In all these issues UK has imposed their rules with just diplomatic complaints from Spain. When there was a resolution (not entailing, true) by an international institution it has been ignored by UK. 2.- The Utrecht Treaty gave Property, not sovereignty (indeed this is a newer concept). The question of sovereignty was raised when UK changed the status of Gibraltar from military base into colony, to avoid negative resolutions from UN in the global decolonization process. Still there were resolutions from UN claiming that Gibraltar should be given back, taking special care of the civilian population.

I would kindly ask you to widen your sources, and consider other facts than those given by the UK government. The question of a city inside a foreign country is something delicate (I'm also against for the Spanish cases in North Africa). But there are a lot of smaller issues that should be considered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.156.224.65 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I would reply with three points. Firstly, I am not a lawyer or an historian or a Latinist, and it would take someone who was all three (are you?) to determine the true meaning of the Treaty. But let's look at the relevant section (from the English version):
"The Catholic King does hereby for himself, his heirs and successors yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar together with Fort and Forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right forever without any exception or impediment whatsoever.
If there is a concept of 'King', how can there not be a concept of the king's powers (i.e. sovereignty)?. And which, if any, of those powers are not transferred by the all-encompassing wording? None, I think. True, the following sentence includes the words "without any Territorial Jurisdiction", but that sentence is concerned with maintaining the King's control over "the country round about", and refers to that, not to Gibraltar itself.
Secondly, I may not be qualified to interpret the Treaty but I think I can tell when wording violates the NPOV policy. Wording such as ".. and the British the denial to fulfill the United Nations resolutions about Gibraltar." That is POV, quite apart from not being true. UN Resolution 2231, for example, "Calls upon the two parties to continue their negotiations, taking into accou[i]nt the interests of the people of the Territory, ...". It is a fact that negotiations have continued. It is a fact that the British have taken care to consult the people of Territory, with results that are well known to you.
Thirdly, I hope I have demonstrated by my quotations that I have consulted sources other than the UK government. Perhaps you would be good enough to accept that. Philip Trueman 11:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi again I'm not qualified to make any legal quote, unless my degree and doctorate in physics, like yours, gives me any super-symmetry power. So: 1st: "(i.e. sovereignty)" this are YOUR words, no Spaniard signed ever anything like that. You can claim that "property" equals to "sovereignty", but it is just your opinion.

2nd: you are right. I was offended by my first visit to this pages written from only one side. My sentence was argumentative. Still there is a fail in folowing UN resolutions (there is more than 1 and it is more than 1 sentence, check it).

3rd: If there are other sources you should use them. The fence was already made when Franco (that big bastard) closed the gate, Spain just made a second door under Spanish control to the fence so that the control would not be only british. The airport is in an area that was formerly a neutral area and occupied by the UK (it is like the UK claim sovereignty over the channel tunnel!). These are facts, check who controlled the gate in the 20's and were the line border was in the 19th century.

Anyway I saw that any change that will not follow the Foreign Office directives will be deleted by a horde of hooligans. I assumed I was not the first civilized person to try to make a change. You won. In the British way. I would just ask you to add at the beginning "British version"

1st. It isn't just my opinion. See this opinion of a lawyer http://www.gibnet.com/texts/gs1_tou.htm - an opinion I am sure you will dispute, but not mine.
2nd. Peace.
3rd. Well, yes, but I can only spare so much time. I think I had enough material to hand to justify my revert on NPOV grounds.
Please could you withdraw "horde of hooligans"? I regard it as a personal attack.
I hope you will reconsider whether to make changes to this article, or related ones. I have no doubt that you have insights into this matter which I and many other Wikipedians do not, and that you could make a valuable contribution. But for anyone's contribution to be of any value at all, it has to be in line with Wikipedia policies. Philip Trueman 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Beefday did you do a google seach because if you did you would seen in the usa some citys have beef days and so if people would put information on them thats would impover the article and make it not nonsence at all okOo7565 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


carefull!

Be careful when reverting vandalism. You reverted one lot of vandalism (Thanks :) ), but that replaced it with more. Make sure you get all the vandalism when reverting. Anyway, thanks for reverting vandalism! Stwalkerster 14:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though what I said above, thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page :)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
for reverting vandalism on countless pages, including my userpage! :) Well Done! Stwalkerster 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Prancing Horse

Because it's only one user posting the page, there's no need to protect it. I've given the author a final warning. If that user posts it again, s/he will get blocked, which should solve the problem. Thanks, NawlinWiki 14:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And hi to you too

It's nice to see I'm not the only one who uses his real name. And thanks for being a sort of reminder about the Proms. No doubt, we'll bump in to each other there. BTW, I'm surprised there isn't an IBMer category. Or a prommer one. Or maybe there are. --Peter cohen 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jaques Cartier

It's my pleasure. I haven't got a clue why poor Jacques seems to be such a popular target, but there's no doubt he's a favorite of the vandals. Keep up the good work! Cheers --Folic Acid 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

PolkaSpots Speedy Deletion

Hello,

I wrote an article on a Wireless Hotspot company, PolkaSpots, last week that you marked for deletion. The comment you made was as follows: "This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia".

Before I wrote the article, I trawled Wiki looking for similar companies to see what others had written about them and copied their general format.

I'm starting to wonder what the purpose of this site is if we're not allow to freely write educated articles about our experiences.

Please advise.

Simon

It isn't the purpose of this site to allow anyone to write educated articles about their experiences. If you want one of those, find a blog hosting site - this isn't one. It's the purpose of this site to build an encyclopedia. Articles about companies are welcome, provided those companies are notable and the article is clear why the company is notable. Articles about companies sourced by the companies themselves are strongly dis-advised, for obvious reasons - no matter how accurate the article, the encyclopedia would lose credibility. Please could you sign your talk page messages in future? Philip Trueman 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


my article

my constant edits are a result of removing prank additions to the niles barnhart wiki article by someone from the same IP address. I'm merely protecting the correct content of the article.

All your mainspace contributions are to articles about Niles or his mother, and no-one else has made a serious contribution to the article. I'm not suggesting it isn't a serious article, though its subject is perhaps borderline for notability in a world encyclopedia. I am suggesting that you may be, um, too close to the subject to have an impartial view, and that, if true, is against Wikipedia norms. And I would be careful, if I were you, of referring to it as 'your' article - see WP:OWN. Philip Trueman 13:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A notice

If you look above I placed my comment or warning before you did some please change the warning you gave the anon so he/she won't go crazy saying I vandailise once and got to warnings,Thank you and I'm WP:AGFArnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No harm done we're all humans we make miskates all the time,Take Care-Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Henri Dumont

Thanks for the attention to typos! I've finished translating and will probably start editing myself one of these days...Sparafucil 06:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Globalize tag

Hey, I just saw you put the "globalize" tag on the Undrafted athlete article. Not being a fully up on all the many high level sports leagues that exist - is the draft a commonly implemented method of player acquisition outside the United States? If it is, then the globalize tag is certainly appropriate - I'm just not sure. At the very least, it's to bad that we can't tag it with "this article is just in horrible shape and it needs major work to be brought up to standards" :-) Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - i just marked this page for watching, so I'll see your response. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has already been flagged for cleanup; I know I'm not the right person to do that. To answer your question, I believe the answer is "no" - I know of no other sport where players are recruited in the manner I understand is in use in American football in the US; also, in some English-speaking countries the word "draft" would be recognised as an Americanism for military conscription, but not in the sporting sense, and the word "athlete" would conjure a picture of track-and-field rather than American football. I don't think the article is in too horrible a shape, but I do think that any future cleanup effort should include making it clearer that this is a precise technical term that applies only in the context of player recruitment to one particular professional sport in one particular country. I imagine it would come as quite a shock to some followers of American football that, within living memory, Yorkshire County Cricket Club only recruited players who had been born in Yorkshire. Philip Trueman 10:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • On the cleanup thing - i know - it's actually a merging of two articles and trying to clean up. I've done a bit of work on it...but more really needs. I see what your saying now on the globalization issue. I'm not in the best place to make these globalization edits. Would you suggest some changes (ie - like what do you think would be an appropriate title). I would venture to guess we may have some resistence from the sports fans here in the stats that think undrafted athlete is fine - but i'm totally with you on this. If we adhere to WP:D i bet we can get this solved. I'm about to bail for the rest of the day, so if i don't see your response now, i think we can talk about this then. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Which is the other article? As I see it, this one ought to be called "Undrafted player (American football)", unless it turns out to be more widely applicable than that. Globalization in this case isn't so much about making the article meaningful in a global context, as making it clear that the phrase only has a meaning in one highly specific context and saying what that context is. Umm, I hope I made myself clear :-) Philip Trueman 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for droping off the face of the earth. I'm going to move this to just undrafted sportsperson as that seems to be the most "disambigious" statement. You totally made myself yourself clear, this article needs to be exanded beyond is Am.F. content because this all "major" professional leagues in north america hold a draft. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I just moved the article and removed the globalization tag! Let me know if you think i've satisfied the criteria because I definitely see the problem with athlete.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Default sort

Hi - Yes, thanks, I realised that after having done it! DionysosProteus 12:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


.

this there a reason why you reverted my edit? --Loanstale and Breadaeraand 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "I went to Indonesia .." has no place in this encyclopedia. Try reading WP:NOR for a start. Philip Trueman 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy criteria

Speedy as non-notable is only for articles that do not assert any importance in the subject. (see WP:CSD. An article saying someone has won awards or published work in major publications asserts significance. If you do not think it significance enough to meet the WP notability criterion, use PROD or AFD. Also, please make sure the edit summary when you place a speedy says speedy deletion requested, or something equally clear, not "tagfest"--it helps the admin --and the author-- spot the edit. But please do keep up the excellent work in spotting vandalism that needs revertig and continue to look for articles that need deleting. DGG (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(For new joiners to this discussion, DGG is referring to my recent edit to Nancy Terrell.) Points taken, and thank you. I did wonder at the time whether the {{db-bio}} was quite justified. I'll be more careful in future. Philip Trueman 16:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry, I didn't notice that there were any linked articles to the terms on that disambiguation page for homes. Tmangray 18:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Philip, Re: Terrance lindall article

Just added material that may be of interest and make my bio more complete. If you see anything that is too subjective or inaapropriate, please edit as you think. Everything that i added is verifiable. Would appreciate your removing that header. If it hangs in there for over a week, i will make the adjustment. That should give anyone time to respond. Best Regards, Terrance Lindall —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrance Lindall (talk • contribs)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Dear Philip

I have abided by your request and added a statement on the discussion page of my bio. I hope it suffices. I would appreciate your removing the tag as you indicated you would do... Best Regards, and thank you for your help. Terrance Lindall 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

José Sacristán

I'm a dissaster with technolgy and I don't know al about wikipedia works or how to dol. Sorry and thanks. Rohmerin 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD template on Jack scurte

I am confused about why you reverted my edit on Jack scurte. The CSD template was placed there by another editor and was only removed because an inexperienced editor made a mistake when adding Template:hangon. I merely intend to put the CSD notice, as well as the hangon template, at the top of the page where it belongs. BassoProfundo 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw that you fixed it. Thanks for staying on top of things. BassoProfundo 18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Scots' dike

Hello. Yes, sorry about that. It's a bit lazy, but I was trawling for info and just did it there and then. I hope to finish the article today. Rosser 11:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Who Warns

Hi Katie! Umm, I think we were in a revert race just now on Booker T. Washington, and I won, so it was for me to warn the vandal. Now he has two warnings. Philip Trueman 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I'm using Vandalproof and it can be a bit slow.--Katieh5584 13:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Accepted

I understand your revert in the light of your great work against vandalism, but the interwiki de:S.H.I.T. – Die Highschool GmbH on Accepted is actually correct. The Germans renamed the film; S.H.I.T. stands for South Harmon Institute of Technoligy. Drbreznjev 16:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! Oh well, you learn something every day. Philip Trueman 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Actually, yes. I was editing and my friend thought it would be funny to do that when I went to the restroom! I'm so sorry. I hope they were reverted. Again, I'm so sorry. Happyme22 18:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a deal! Happyme22 18:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I certainlyu hope you gave the tool a smack. Had the edits not been so out of character, you might've been blocked. I suggest you plant a plastic bag of oregano in his backpacka nd call the cops on him. It's a fun prank. j/k - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks!

Thank you for fixing that bad edit to cornrows! futurebird 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sophocles

Hi Philip, I was rolling back a pair of successive edits which inserted and removed nonsense text but also removed some real text too. I know there is a tool to roll back several edits in one go, but I don't have it. So I was undoing the vandal edits in reverse order. Look at the history and you'll see what I've done. Regards Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have cleared that one up. Thanks for the suggestions. --Peter cohen 16:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

One adjective in RC sex abuse cases

Thanks for your suggestion. I'm going to let someone else make the change. I already screwed it up once!  :) Student7 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Total Section Deletion

You were personally attacked there. Personal attacks do not belong here. I don't care if it's an admin or anyone who starts the personal attack; I'll just remove it. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Frank Lampard

Hello Philip

I am very new at this and have a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia - but I just happened to be doing a bit of reading on Chelsea and (although not exactly rabid) that is the reason the name came to mind when I created the account - and I couldn't leave Mikey7145's 'pornstar' addition there, so I removed it. By the look of things he is a bit of a serial pest and you have removed his vandalism before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseawoman (talk • contribs) 12:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

Please, do not revert without warning the editor of why you are reverting. Reverting is not as important as letting the user know that what they are doing is wrong. — Moe ε 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't completely agree - I think it varies with the apparent sophistication of the user. At one extreme is the registered user using AWB who doesn't check the edit carefully enough - this merits a full explanation of why the edit is wrong. At the other extreme is the experimenting IP who accidentally adds "[[Link title]]" to an article - this is probably best just reverted. They may never access Wikipedia again, and the warning, if it is ever read (vide a well-known current bug), will probably be read some time afterwards by someone else who knows nothing of the matter and may well be put off Wikipedia themselves by what they read. I can't see that any warning no matter how gentle would be constructive in this case. Towards one end of the scale is the registered user who deliberately adds gibberish - I might just revert that the first time, but only once. Towards the other is the IP struggling to make a worthwhile change who needs several goes to get it right - in that case it may be good psychology to let them learn from their own mistakes, at least for a while. Ultimately, no blanket policy can ever be as good as making a judgement. Philip Trueman 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your recent edit to Cetacean intelligence

oh yeah you're right. I guess I completely misread the sentence lol El0i 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Philip and thanks for your helpful and informative welcome message. I shall certainly be looking at the links you have sent and in time may well become a regular Wikpedian (spare time being the main obstacle). I have not yet included my email address but would appreciate any tips on the pros and cons of doing so. I don't want to open myself to a lot of unwanted spam or rubbish mail. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseawoman (talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Thank you for deleting a very insightful cultural refrence i added on the newest simpons episode about how when burns and homer go to improve theatre and there refrence Secound City were Colbert got his start from and happend to be the guest star on the episode. I only said wikipedia was gay because if u can't see that was a joke in the episode then u guys have ur heads up ur assses, you'll probably delete what I wrote and take credit for it you wannabe editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownMorristown (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

Something needs to be done about 189.25.21.28 are you an admin or do you know how to contact one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnpoo (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

what are the definitions for warnings? Shawnpoo 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And Another...

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I give you this Barnstar for all you vandalism fighting! Tiddly-Tom 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Barnstar!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You've beaten me to the punch already several times in the last five minutes! Keep it up! Tiddly-Tom 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't remember giving you the one above, but keep them both anyway for all your good work :P Tiddly-Tom 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel prize 2007

You recently removed some information that I added to the nobel prize site. Why??? see Nobel_laureates_by_country

The edit was fully referenced. 140.203.16.76 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry (just curious)

Now I see

Thanks

For checking up on Trade Routes and making this edit.
The article is a current GA nominee and I couldn't look after it since I was away. It's nice to see that other people in the community care.
Best Wishes,
Havelok 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

You see, the problem with Wikipedia is that, it's very biased. Richard Warman is similar to your ANL and Garry Gable. Warman has used female names to entrap people in Canada. This information is sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6millionmore (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I used the word "prevert" as pun. It doesn't matter if I'm a far right activist. Anyone can be considered "far right" Would anyone in your Country, England, who hates the invasion of Muslims be considered 'far right' to you? The sources were there, and the Richard Warman page got rolled back. The censorship on here is outstanding.

6millionmore —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

Is your real name Philip Trueman ? - Look Left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I said Left !!! 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should it matter? Philip Trueman 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just asking - Look Left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I said Left !!! 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

216.56.5.2

I noticed your revert on the Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin article. Great job! I have reported the vandal at WP:AIV. Royalbroil 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter John Haworth Doyle

thanks for flagging your proposed changes - they look great to me so (from my point of view) please go ahead.

Cheers

Grblundell 11:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Owen

Actually what I was trying to on that page was get rid of a lot of edits which have basically turned to page into something more suited to uncyclopedia than Wikipedia. Unfortunately I think I don't have a good grasp of the undo system yet. If you have a read, you'll see what I mean.

--Matty art 18:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All looks ok to me, it's not a greatly written article but much better than the vandalism that had occurred before. The gives --> gave change was to try tense and keep in line with the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty art (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What to do about frozen vandalism

On User talk:ClueBot Commons#Dynamic IPs, you raise a good point: How to avoid "freezing" vandalism? This problems is of course not just limited to that excellent bot or to dynamic IPs, but includes all vandalism revertions by bots and rash human vandalism fighters alike. I have for a long time had a vague idea how this could be solved, and I would like to run it by you.

The watchlist currently has some special treatment for minor edits and bot edits. They are marked with a letter, and the user can hide them. I propose to add yet another special case for "vandalism revertions". Anti-vandal bots would mark their edits with "vb" instead of "mb", and human-operated anti-vandal tools would just set the "v" tag.

Then, when a user displays the watchlist with "hide anti-vandal edits" turned on, the display would not just hide them, but display the last edit prior to the reverted vandalism. The same option could work in the history list; all recognized vandalism and its reversions would magically disappear from the list, as if they never happened. This is a feature I'm longing for since it would shrink some of those lists to a fraction of their current length.

Let me know (here) what you think about it. — Sebastian 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm glad that someone other than me thinks this is a problem, and equally glad that someone is dreaming up solutions that are completely different to mine. It certainly sounds interesting - being able to see the true developmental history of an article with all vandalisms and reversions removed would be a valuable feature. Where I think I have a concern is in the area of allowing humans, as opposed to approved bots, to set the 'v' flag - even if it were restricted to established editors (those who have been registered at least four days) there would be far too much temptation to those engaged in POV edit wars to flag their reverts of their opponents as vandalism. If use of the flag were restricted to, say, admins and approved bots, that wouldn't be so bad, and as the bots get better (and I have no doubt they will) it would become more valuable. But even now, with bots such as ClueBot as good as they are, it is still necessary to have human oversight of their actions - this is why they do not flag their edits as bot edits (many people exclude botflagged edits in RecentChanges) - hiding reversions in this way would hide the false positives. Philip Trueman 10:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your concern is very valid, but I think it can be resolved. We just handle it the same way we handle other vandalism related features which we allow humans to use:

  1. The threshold for established editors is usually not by count of days, but of edits. VandalProof e.g. requires 250 mainspace edits without a recent history of vandalism. However, we can be less strict than that, as I will explain below.
  2. Abuse itself is not a huge problem: It is about as harmful as "minor edit" vandalism. While some people will miss it because they hide "v" edits, others will display "v" edits and catch it. (Actually, this is not quite as simple - see below)
  3. It will be abused less often than you may think: As with any other anti-vandalism functionality, there is an incentive to not abuse it: I someone abuses it, then they lose the privilege to use it.
  4. I think we can compare the frequency of abuse with the current abuse of the term "vandalism" in edit summaries (such as this nice specimen). That abuse is done by two groups of editors: Newbies with less than 10 edits, and politically motivated single-minded POV pushers. Our threshold would exlude the former, and from my experience with the latter that group is very well aware of not abusing privileges. This becomes evident when you see how those who have the privilege for anti-vandal tools are very careful not to abuse them, even though they may be quick in throwing the word "vandal" at their opponents.

Afterthoughts
I now realize that it would be better not to call it "anti-vandal edits"; on a conceptual level, the reason for the reversion actually doesn't matter, so let's just call it "reversion" with the tag "r" instead of "v".

When I compared the "r" tag with the "m" tag above, I assumed that there always some people who keep the "hide reversions" option turned off. I now realize that that of course drains the pool of anti-vandal fighters who can see frozen vandalism. Therefore, we need a display option that does both. Forget about "hide reversions" - Let's have a "fold reversions view"! This view would look very much like the "related changes" list. There you have a little triangle to the left, which you can expand to see all recent changes, and a parenthesis like (2 changes) that shows the overall change. For the "fold reversions" view, of course, the parenthesis would not show the overall change, which would be nothing, but a list of all texts involved in the changes. — Sebastian 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking the last two aftherthoughts to their logical conclusion, we don't even need a special checkbox anymore. Any reversion would just automatically be marked with an "r". So nothing changes for the vandals, no new feature for them - sorry ;-). But we will have an additional view that empowers us to fight them. Personally, I don't think we need the old view anymore, but there will always be people who prefer the old style, so we should provide a choice in the preferences. — Sebastian 18:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Four days is the threshold for such things as editing a semi-protected page - a right that can only be taken away by blocking (or a decision of the ArbCom). VP is an additional tool one has to apply for, not a feature of RecentChanges or of any other part of how the site works. I've tried to limit my own ideas to things which can be implemented by tool and bot writers, rather than things that require work by the WikiMedia developers. I don't want to discourage you in any way - I find your ideas stimulating - but I suggest that any idea that can only be implemented by the developers needs to be able to show a worthwhile return on the investment of their time, and to be likely to be seen as such by the community as a whole. Further complications to the user hierarchy may not be welcome. If you can see how to modify your own monobook.js to do what you want then that would be different - you may well be on to a winner. Philip Trueman 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's much harder to get a WikiMedia change than a new bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience whatsoever with the monobook, so do you know anybody who could help me with that?

The chances for a WikiMedia change being implemented depend on two things: The quality of the proposal and support from well respected editors. Would this be something you could support, or is there anything I can do to gain your support? — Sebastian 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on: Your reversion of my reversion to Black-footed Ferret

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Black-footed Ferret, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Excirial 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote on my user page:

Your revert got a previously vandalized line back in, saying "David is gay". Im currently reverting at high speed, so that line was enough to call it a vandalism for me :) --Excirial 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User Page: Excirial

Just an update snippet, dont want to spam your user page with the entire text :). Actually, thanks a lot for your comment over there. It was a lot more useful then the current "Name and Blame" ping-pong nonsense, as it was actually written from an unbiased,neutral point of view. And due to the addition of the popups advice, it was actually very constructive since it will prevent there errors on the future.

I actually want to hand you this barnstar for your help:

The Barnstar of Peace
For your unbiased and very constructive comments, which solved a long dispute on my talk page.
Thanks a great deal for your help!
Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Also, You could probably notice my comments were getting semi-annoyed, which was the way i started to feel about this entire situation. Im pretty sure that, without your intervention, i would have either ended up saying "This is getting nowhere, im done with this topic", or i would have requested mediation or something similar to get this over with. With some bad luck i would have ended up being ruse. But this way its more conclusive, and i actually feel a lot better about this now.

(from my user page)

  • (outdent) May I make some third party comments? Like Excirial, I do vandalism-reversion using Lupin's tool (slightly modified, in my case - be wary of copying, my JavaScript is still rubbish) and standard templates. Both are great tools but they're just that, tools, and they need to be used properly. Like many useful tools they make it easier and quicker to do the wrong thing - I've learned that the hard way. I would like to suggest to Excirial that he would do well to install popups and, before reverting a registered editor, to hover his mouse over the 'contribs' link and have it show him what else the editor has done recently. This has saved me from a few gaffes in the past. And I would ask his critics to cut Excirial some slack. His contributions so far, in a very short space of time, have been overwhelmingly positive, albeit in a very narrow field and despite a few regrettable errors. Philip Trueman 18:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats actually an excellent suggestion Philip, Many thanks for the advice! In currently using lupins uw-vand button which immediately takes me to the edit screen. In there i have to read trough the "Spread out" templates to see if a user vandalized before, which is, due to the HTML nature, an annoying process. I have only used lupin, and a twinkle ARV module so far, but it sounds like this will solve this kind of registered problems, as well as my own "HTML Decode" annoyance. And by the way: Feel free to jump into whatever discussion on my user page that you want to. The more, the merrier (As long as it aren't vandals) :) --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no need to cut slack. He made a mistake. When I pointed it out, all he had to do was check it and say "oops, sorry" instead of reverting me again and issuing a second template. This debate is really pointless, and a real waste of time. Sure, busy vandal-fighters will make 1-2% mistakes, whatever. All they need to do is be humble enough to acknowledge it when it happens, and move on. It's the self-righteous twiddle and the "no one understands us vandalfighters, we're the front line" crap that gets me. Most of us old hands, myself included, were fighting vandals before you knew what wikipedia was. Move on.--Docg 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

BarnStar!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You just can't stop beating me to the punch! Tiddly-Tom 18:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone will eventualy probaly come up with one, but I can't quite see how you would do it to garentee that it would get reverted if vandlism. You would probaly need to have a select list of people who were allowed to use it insted of just anyone, as then the vandals chould chose not to revert and it would be left undetected. Even so, you would need checking as everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Keep up the good work, Tiddly-Tom 11:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Clockmaker

The link previously led to a French film, which not the correct topic. Redlinks aren't ideal, granted, but they can't be left blue if they're leading to the wrong article altogether, either. Bearcat 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User page layout

Hi Philip,

I edited the layout of your user page a little bit to make it looka little more structured. I know i did not ask for permission to do so, but i felt that this little edit makes it look a little better. Feel free to revert if you don't agree with me :)

Edited:

  • Made a table around the userboxes, to prevent spreading out over the page
  • Added a header "About Me" and "Userboxes" to structure things a bit
  • Changed your "Approbation" header from a class 2, to a class 1 header.

Kind regards: --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 11:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Modified Lupin version

Hi again Philip :)

You probably did not notice, but the official Lupin version ceased functioning properly today. The problems include a non working admin rollback, and a few buttons that ceased functioning. In short, its currently impossible to revert effectively with the official Lupin version. This seems to affect quite a few Lupin users, since there are already 6 users asking about this on the various pages from Lupin.

I however noticed, that your version still works as intended. As of such i left a notice to our colleague reverter's that they could temporally use your version as a fix for their normal reversion work (Post can be found Here). Even though i left a warning that there should be no complaining about your version, it might happen that someone drops by to ask about your version. Sorry about that in advance!

Last i want to note that im impressed by your version of Lupin. The inclusion of the report buttons is great, since it allows for faster reporting then twinkle:arv would allow me. If you wont mind, i would like to copy this (In my eyes) stable version to my own userspace to use it above the official version.

With kind regards,
--Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 08:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Aniseed Balls

Philip, Aniseed Balls are traditionally made with a small round seed in the centre, to start off the process. Aniseed (Pimpinella anisum) seed are not suitable for this since they are memebrs of Umbelliferae - they are highly ridged, long thin seed with a slight curl. The Brassica seed usually used is rapeseed. Regards, Dr Brian H Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianHBrown (talk • contribs) 11:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Spoilsport

Dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.50.83 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Brent Wilson

Thank you for reverting K-bomb260's edit to the page Brent Wilson. Just so you know that this is the fourth time he has vandalized Wikipedia and the second time he vandalized that particular page. I hope he gets blocked. Jazzline b! (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about the revertion of the external link addition in the Robin Hood section (the one leading to www.timpollard.com) - is it not a legitimate link, considering the person in question has certainly been performing as the character for very many years, has regularly been (and still is) employed directly by Nottingham Castle (and City Council) over time as that character and is also directly involved many aspects of portraying the character? Surely it's at least as valid as (for instance) the Wolfshead Bowmen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.68.55 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That revert wasn't by me. I suggest you talk to SqueakBox, whose edit summary says it was a spam link. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and my sincere apologies for the misatttribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurgan5 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Two Sections

I have removed two sections on your talk page because they are either violating WP:SPAM or WP:NPA. Your edits are not destructive; in fact, they maintain the integrity of this encyclopedia. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 02:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Invader ZIM

Hey, since you helped in the editing, could you please participate in the voting to move Invader Zim to Invader ZIM? :)Leslie Granger (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism by IP address

Just so you know, IP address 82.42.3.225 often vandalises Wiki articles. I beleive this IP address belongs to a school, so further foolish changes are probable. I would give this IP address a warning if I knew how, but, well I don't so I though maybe you could look into this. Hope this helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathen 1 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just come off a six month block. After that long a sentence, I'm happy to cut some slack - let's see if things improve. WP:VAND and WP:WARN are good places to learn about warnings. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I only recently created a wikipedia account and I'm still finding my way around.--N (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC) By the way I am the same person who created the first paragraph, I just changed my signature. N (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Antichrist

You reverted the page antichrist and I'd like to know why? I checked the history and the ONLY reason given was Butterfly. Please check your sources before making such a change.

Thanks..

Bruce1333 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop it!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Just stop it! ;) keep up the good work ;) Tiddly-Tom 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hehe :P Have a nice dinner and keep up the good work :) Tiddly-Tom 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


RFC on Bruce1333

I've started an RFC on this user, as he is continuously adding the same block of text into the Antichrist article, to the point where it is becoming disruptive. He has ignored all attempts to communicate with him, so I've started an RFC; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bruce1333. You reverted the user before, so I thought I'd include you. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a plethora of diffs to link up, and I'm trying to get everything in chronological order. 5 minutes. I'll drop by and tell you when I'm done. Master of Puppets Care to share? 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bruce1333. I'm pretty sure there are more links to him inserting his essay; do you think I should find them all? Master of Puppets Care to share? 18:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Who do I complain to when an Editor is out of line, and simply taking one Users word over another without checking the facts for him/her self? Please reply.. Thanks!

Bruce1333 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Be careful Cheers, `'Míkka>t 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a little unfair. My revert was this [2]. The fact that the previous edit was also vandalism doesn't mean I was wrong. 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

May this season bring you success, good times and happiness. Looking forward to working with you in the future.
Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 07:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_Trueman/Archives/2007&oldid=1251622873"