I'm not quite sure why you persisted in deleting the Brice Carrington page while I was writing my defense, despite the fact that I had posted a holdon tag, as specified in Wikipedia policy. Seems like you could have waiting five minutes for me to finish typing. Regardless, my argument was thus:
This page has been flagged for speedy deletion as an "attack" page. The reason that I feel this is not an attack page is because the evidence can be independently verified. He has been quoted in major publications as a sound designer for films. Credits for these films can be independently verified. Since he has been able to pose as a an impostor on a public stage, this article provides evidence that can hopefully be used by future journalists in order to verify his authenticity. I think this is important, but if it's deemed an attack, I will certainly understand. Anyway, it would seem that you're going to keep deleting it, regardless of whether or not it is factual, so I'll just stop posting. --Omeomi20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete it. I did, however, tag it as an attack page. I felt (and still feel) that it was outside the realm of appropriate biographies for living people. If you can provide third party sources that exhibit a neutral point of view, the issue can be re-evaluated, but as it is, I agree with the administrator's decision to delete the page. Philippe Beaudette20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brice Cariington had no involvement in the films "Fantastiv Four" and "Spiderman". this is verifieble by contacting the Post Production sound departments at 20th Century Fox, And Sony Pictures Entertainment. I have personal spoken with him regarding his claims, and he denied making them, saying that he makes sound which sound similar to sounds used in the films he speaks of- He also said that the autors of the articles who cited his claims spoke in error, yet no attempt has been made to correct the errors. His latest interview from 17, Feruary 2007 is as follows-
Would like clarification as to why the Misys Healthcare System entry is flagged as "advertising" when it is nearly a duplicate of the format for Misys, plc Misys.
Wikipedia has guidelines for notability of companies, which you can view at Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). I think were you to reorganize the material according to that, and include the missing information, it might be a step in the right direction. The other thing is that wikipedia generally requires that articles by written by a disinterested third party, which (based upon your username), you probably are not. Luckily, Wikipedia also puts a third set of eyes on this prior to deletion, and that administrator will consider your explanation on that page, as well as this one of mine. Thanks for your interest in this encyclopedia! Philippe Beaudette 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I will read the Notability sections and peruse some examples throughout Wikipedia and rewrite accordingly. And I'm not a disinterested third party as you mentioned. I simply traverse this site often and have found references to our parent company and our competitors and felt that an article (written properly, of course) should be added to the site. Thank you again for your support and guidance for this! MisysHC21:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to this page you marked to remove the advertising-ish wording of the page, someone else has removed the speedy deletion tag, but feel free take a second look and suggest improvements, thanks
Evanreiser22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do so love breaking out the salt shaker. And thanks for your hard work -- I see your name around everywhere but never get a chance to let you know someone appreciates it. -- Merope21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks again, I didn't notice the username. Given that the creator also signed his messages as "Marc", the same name as the guy who invented the product, I'm going to leave that one deleted. -- Merope21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Philippe. Thanks for directing me to User:LiamSAFC's most recent transgression. He is this close to a indef block, but I'm hoping a week long block will make him realize that he isn't going to get away with this again and he will give up with this article. I'd prefer not to salt it, because in doing so it may actually provide his "show" with a better Ghit. However, next time he does it, if there is one, will be his last either way. Thanks again, and keep up the excellent work. Rockpocket05:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's hardly anything left, but I do think that saying something was the first of its kind is an assertion of notability. It's not a good one, but it's there. I'll add it to the watchlist and come back to it when I'm less grumpy. -- Merope18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta lot of rage, and I take it out on NPP. You're doing a great job, though! I'm not sure how I feel about the {{badbio}} template--sometimes you just want to tell the kids to knock it off without being so helpful. Or I do, anyway. -- Merope22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an odd coincidence that the topic that you deleted today stressed a French Egyptologist, Georges Daressy, someone that died the year I was born. Are you not French? Humor pops up in the strangest situations.
It also appears that I have have picked up where Daressy dropped the ball in 1906, he not completing a task until Hana Vymazalova pointed me in the right direction in 2002, towards a hekat unity written as 64/64, and how all of the Akhmin Wooden Tablet was written. Best Regards, Milogardner22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looked it over, and zapped it per CSD A7. So, in one sense, you were "wrong" in that I didn't agree it was spam, but in another sense you were correct in thinking it didn't really meet WP standards for inclusion. (I tend to reserve the spam criterion for articles written in the first person, using a lot of inflated language, or submitted by persons with the same username as the article subject. But that's just me.) -- Merope00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated my toolbox with the new {uw} user warning templates. If you decide to switch to the new templates, feel free to borrow my code if you don't feel like typing all the danged things. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right--it shouldn't be posted there, either. In cases like these, you can use the {{db-because}} template and just say "Deleted content posted on talk page". I'm not sure that there's a speedy criterion that really applies--CSD G6 comes to mind, though--but I'm pretty sure most admins would zap that kind of thing on sight. Especially since it's on the talk page of a salted article. Anyway, 'tis gone now. :) -- Merope13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article has been deleted, but the talk page is still there, wouldn't {{db-talk}} apply? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the sequence of events, but I've placed that for deleted articles' talk pages that don't get deleted simultaneously. Leebo8613:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leebo, shut up. :) You're absolutely right; it can apply in this situation. There are exceptions to db-talk, apparently, concerning if deletion discussion is on the talk page, but ... yeah. I suck. I'm going back to bed. -- Merope17:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh, it looks like my dastardly plan of undermining Merope is falling into place! :) On a serious note, does "deletion discussion" cover any discussion relevant to the page's notability? Or are frivolous notability claims generally excluded from that category. Leebo8617:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know. It's something that gets kicked around on the CSD talk page all the time, but I don't think the language of the criterion gets altered. I think *serious* deletion discussion (such as accompanying an AFD, for example) needs to be kept, but not "This page is true! Billy is awesome!" kinda things. Of course, this makes the criterion subjective, which is not within the spirit of CSD. Oops. However, I have faith in admins and a good chunk of new page patrollers, and so I have no problem with it being a use-your-judgement kinda deal. So. Yeah. I usually nuke the talk page along with the article when doing NPP and CAT:CSD work, but that's just because orphaned talk pages really bother me. And because 90% of the stuff I delete is pure unadulterated crap. -- Merope20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you deleted some of my boxes, which is fine. I'm fairly new to it so if I was making a mistake please let me know what it is and how I can fix them. Never done these before. Just trying to learn something new. Sorry for the problems that I may have caused. --Thunderstix33 11:25, 31 January 2007, CST
I think I did these right now. Could you take a look at them for me to make sure they are correct now? Thanks a bunch. --Thunderstix33 00:06, 1 February 2007, CST
Ooh, thank you! I like to keep pratice with new page/ newbie's contributions patrolling. I notice that you have warned quite a few editors whose pages I have subsequently deleted. That's good work and something that I don't usually see. You keep up the good work too! This is my early morning patrol before work, so other admins will have to take over the deletion process now until I start the afternoon shift. Regards and good editing, (aeropagitica)06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please do not delete the captain seven page, i will show verification of its importance ASAP.
You know, the funny thing is that I didn't know either! I think Rupert Everett is probably closer to the truth! Actually, I get "Matthew Broderick" a lot... but then, I don't particularly see that one either. Ryan had my back on that one, and it's appreciated! :-) Philippe Beaudette20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way sonny, but I've had this name since before your mamma was in diapers! I don't want to "voluntarily change" it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Howard Marshall (talk • contribs)
I do try whenever I am able! This wasn't a notable website and there may be a case for a WP:3RR warning to be issued if the article is recreated, pertaining to the text removed and reinstated. Regards, (aeropagitica)07:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you were online through DLog. I wonder if you would mind taking a look at User:209.221.8.226? He appears to be link spamming articles. I've reverted much of it, but think he may need a block to keep him from doing too much damage. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give Martinp23 any feature requests or bugs. He'll also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if he's made a new release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just signed up, too! And it's freaking me out! It ... it ... it's so fast! Faster than I am! I am highly unsettled. -- Merope19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about requesting this… but I think I'll hold off, because I want to focus more on encyclopedia building for a while. It'd be harder to motivate myself to write articles with such an easy way to NPP at my fingertips :) Leebo8620:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's funny - I'm a much better patroller than I am writer, so this doesn't really detract me. But I can see where if I were more into the writing side I would feel just like you do. Philippe Beaudette21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you'll move those references to the article (from the talk page), you're in great shape. Those look really good to me, and I've removed the speedy tag, as well as your hangon tag. Philippe Beaudette03:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi can't figure for the life of me why you would want to delete the external link. The Link allows access to the community. A tool just like going to the cenus page for information. Here you can find out obituaries, births, barangay notices etc. No charges to use, or post. Insiston10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)insiston[reply]
Based on your username (which was incredibly similar to the link address) and the fact that the link didn't contribute greatly to the article, nor did it establish credibility to anything in the story, I decided that it looked like link-spamming, or advertising for the website that shares your name. The fact that your only contribution to the encyclopedia has been to add that link to multiple pages seems to cement that plan. Philippe Beaudette15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can click on the bluelinks to see the template texts and instructions. While there, you can click on the
'History" tab to see who contributed to them.
Remember to "subst:" these templates: this lets the auto-signature feature work right (so you needn't add the four tildes), and makes the message text (rather than just the template tag) visible in edit mode so the user can reply point by point.
Filling in the "reason for objection" or "nature of concern" lets you specify just what the problem is, for instance "I think this name too closely resembles the obscene word 'xxxx' in the 'yyyy' language." With the "article" template, you must enter the article name.
Associate professors are usually considered N on WP--depends on how many papers, etc. (Asst. Profs.only sometimes, Full professors almost always) The speedy you just placed has been removed, and an explanation of what to do put on the talk p.
You certainly may not agree, either in general or for this person. -- and AfDs usually have a minority saying NN in such cases.--you can and should take it there and join in the arguments. But speedy is meant for incontestable cases--"Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under deletion policy is recommended." & " If the assertion is likely to be controversial .. the article should be nominated for AfD instead."--though most of them recently seem to go to prod first. Speedies involving university faculty are almost always contested and controversial. DGG08:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. It would be helpful if you could include a link to the article in question - I'll dig through contributions this afternoon to see if I can find it. That makes it easier to discuss the case more specifically. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that everyone wants to blast this guy, it seems almost fashionable and a number of folks are pissed off. But I know this, he only cliams to reproduce sounds for the films, not that he does them. I know the artices say different but I heard from the orses mouth when someone asked him point blank. I am sure there are some mistakes along the lines, but non of you folks who are gettig paid are getting hurt and ome drop the venom. He says he re create the sounds in films and sells them, which is not illegal or wrong. The credit is a matter of record. I hope none of you have a skeleton. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsidethelines (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 February 2007
It was sweet of you to remove the personal attack, but being called a fag is pretty much de rigeur. Never mind the fact that I'm female, or that I identify as straight. (Which, really, I'm kind of regretting, what with you and FisherQueen about.) Oh, and since this came up recently -- if you ever go up for RfA, let me know. You're probably not ready yet (just in the sense that the RfA crowd tends to be a mite bit overzealous when it comes to something that is not supposed to be a big deal), but I would definitely support you. -- Merope03:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, that's very nice of you (about RfA) - I agree that I'm probably not ready yet, but it's something I'd like to do at some point probably. But first, I wanna be sure that I'm not gonna do something really st00pid once I get there, so I have more to learn first. You'll be one of the first to know, my dear. Oh, and... come toward the dark side. Ask FisherQueen, we have more fun, and you can always count on us to be the life of the party. Philippe Beaudette03:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - Thank you for your concerns - Yes, I noticed it too. It seems to be happening only when I use popups with IE6 (which I use at work), when I use them with Firefox, there's no problem at all. I checked Lupin's talk page and I think it can be fixed somehow. I don't know any javascript at all, but I'll try to fix it too. Happy editing. - Myanw07:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your concern about the FLHS Student Activities page...I created this page as an addition to the Fairfield Ludlowe High School page. It listed all the clubs of the school, and subsequent details. I was transferring it from a word document, in which the original information was stored. Once I would have completed the club list, it would have been linked to the Fairfield Ludlowe High School page. I hope I am able to continue with the list, and if not, please give me suggestions of what I should do....Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Interpolarity (talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 February 2007.
We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:
Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
Monthly Challenge: Find 5 editors to LGBT articles and invite them to the project! Check out our recruitment tips if you need them. Good luck!
Project News
With such rapid development of the project, it was decided that a Coordinator was needed to ensure all the fiddly maintenence was kept up. Elections were held and Dev920 (talk·contribs) has been elected Coordinator for the next three months. She said "I am honoured and proud to be at the helm of such a fantastic WikiProject and look forward to our future". Congratulations Dev!
The assessment system continues to be a great success, we have tagged over 5200 articles! Please tag any LGBT related articles you come across by adding {{LGBTProject | class=}} to the talkpage. Please see the Assessment Department for how to assess an article according to the grading system.
Jumpaclass is proving to be quite successful! The winner at the end of the year gets to pick the January collaboration, so sign up and get going! Or challenge another user to see how far you can jump a stub!
A new Community department has been set up to foster community amongst our members. It mostly acts as other WikiProjects' Outreach department, but also has a Quilt to which every member is entitled to add a square containing anything of their choice.
The peer review is not getting much custom - please notice you can cross-list other peer reviews from different projects that also fall within our scope.
Many people still seem to be unaware that the Deletion sorting subpage exists for XfDs to be listed: please use and watch that page instead of issuing "alerts" for ordinary AfDs on the project talkpage.
WP:FILM has a current drive to give every film article an infobox. WP:LGBT successfully gave all 105 LGBT infoboxless films infoboxes, so a big thank you to everyone who participated.
A new template, LGBT, has been created for articles which are becoming to cluttered with infoboxes. Thanks to WJBscribe and SatyrTN for creating it.
A very basic resources page has been started. Please add to it as you come across useful sites.
A promotional poster for the project has been created: http://wplgbt.tripod.com/Wikipedianeedsyou.doc (you have to directly cut and paste the url, or it won't let you download it). Please distribute anywhere and everywhere you desire, such as gay libraries, cybercafes, community centres and so on. Also, please let Dev920 know where you have put it up, so she can keep track of our coverage.
An LGBT Publications Taskforce has been proposed. Please sign up here if you are interested in being involved.
An LGBT WikiProject has been set up on the Spanish Wikipedia! Set up by Raystorm, it has already gained six members and is developing an assessment system. If you speak any Spanish, please consider going up and lending a hand if you can!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
I see you have run into the popups issue where it leaves the $ edit summary. Apparently it's a bug with some recent changes to popups interacting with IE6.0. It doesn't seem to be a big issue, as you mostly use VP. However, if you want to fix it, you can get IE7.0 or change back to the last version of popups - see User talk:Lupin#Getting "revision $1 dated $2 by $3".--Kubigula(talk)04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently you deleted the changes to the article for the radio show "penn radio" deeming the changes as not helpful. The changes were in the context of converting the show article to past tense, as the show has just today been cancelled from the CBS radio lineup.
The article should in fact be edited to reflect that the show is no longer on the air, and not be in the present tense. "The Penn Jillett show is" is incorrect. It should correctly read "The Penn Jillett show was" etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.111.37 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You're quite correct, and clearly that revert shouldn't have happened. I'm not sure exactly what happened there, but I apologize and hope you were able to revert it cleanly. Philippe Beaudette01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your message on my Meg(film) article changes
This is supposedly an encyclopedia, not a message board. I have changed the article back to the known facts that are relevant to the films current status. The things I removed are just hyperbole, and were just some MegHead's interpretation of some meaningless industry jargon. There is no film called Meg, so it doesn't even deserve an entry in the first place. Regardless, as I wrote in the discussion portion of that page, wishing or hoping a film is going to be made by a certain date does not make it so.As a matter of fact,New Line has yet again pushed back the film.Nanaharas02:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is less with the film (never heard of it, don't really have an opinion) and more with the writing. For instance, the edits that I reverted included (among other things) the sentence "Meg is the title of an unproduced screenplay, currently still in development hell. The screenplay is based on the novel Meg by Steve Alten. "
Saying that something is in "development hell" is not encyclopedic, nor is it relevant. It is, in fact, pushing a point of view which is something that we frown on here...
Development Hell is a commonly used industry term that refers to scripted projects that have been in turn around or been delayed multiple times for many years. I even link to it's page right here on Wiki that defines it (tho if I would change a couple words phrase suchs as 'never get made'). So putting Meg in that category is not POV. The MEG situation fits that description and falls into that category. In fact the Meg article page should be removed and a short write up on it put on that page instead. I'd do it but I have gotten a lot of flack for trying to 'clean things up' , so I hardly bother contributing here anymore. In many cases (the Teena Brandon page for one...first off Teena NEVER used the name Brandon Teena) , POV is mostly what that article consists of, yet even the mere suggestion that it be re-written gets all kinds of flack and threats.Nanaharas00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading you page regarding a certain request for the speedy delete of a page I made, when I spotted one of you so called rules offering a cookie! Thats my stick! Why Philippe, why?
Your page is very humorous. I thank thee for that. - Thekittenofterra05:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Philippe, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That SO was not supposed to happen. NPWatcher misfired. I've gotten so used to the other program (but I'm blocked since the username change) and obviously, I screwed up and hit the wrong button! I'm glad you noticed, though.... FisherQueen would have mocked me mercilessly. I love that about her. :-) Philippe Beaudette01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I approved you for NPWatcher. I don't believe I can approve people for VP (though I could, of course, be wrong). -- Merope01:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, never have. I do have the pretty rollback button, though. ;) I tried NPWatcher for a while but found it was slower than I am. Plus, I couldn't tell if users had been warned before. Maybe next week when work at the office slows down I'll play with it. -- Merope01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing about NPWatcher is the AfD and Notify and Prod (and notify) buttons. (When some idiot doesn't prod warn himself). It automates that process, which makes it worth its weight in gold.
Hey Philippe, just wanted to say thanks a bunch for supporting my Rfa and thanks for the congrats! Its so weird having these extra tools, but I certainly won't abuse them. No doubt I'll catch you at WP:RFCN soon Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about removing the warning. I'd rather leave it up with the explanation than delete it and have people think I have anything to hide ;) Keep fighting the good anti-vandal fight! Caknuck15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DavidShankBone deserves kudos for his current drive to provide quality LGBT photos from the NYC area. One of the more recent photos is posted on Michael Musto, and you can check out the gallery on David's user page.
Project News
There is now the beginning of a list of core topics to possibly be included in the Wikipedia 1.0 release. Your suggestions are welcome; there may be many core LGBT topics still missing.
SatyrTN identified all the articles that were in subcategories of Category:LGBT but not yet tagged with the project's banner, about 1,400 articles. These have been completed, though SatyrBot will make periodic runs through the cats to find any new entries. Thanks Satyr!
The number of articles within our project's spectrum (6,667 currently) should now be relatively stable and only grow with article creation. However, if you find a category that should be included, please let SatyrTN know so it can be included in the bots runs.
Work is underway to improve the LGBT Portal. Please add any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles to the gallery here. Also if anyone would like to volunteer to help in maintaining the portal, please make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Hello,
Madhu Omalloor is a non-notable bio. A cartoonist and sub-editor without even a single notable award to cite is not even borderline notable. The two awards mentioned are highly suspect. One is a fellowship. Anyway, not supported by any reference. Can you please send it to AfD? I am a blocked user. 59.91.253.12806:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, let me think on that a bit, actually. I'm going to get some advice. I don't really have a problem sending it to AfD, but I think it's best that someone else do it, because I don't want it to appear that I'm acting as a proxy for a blocked user. Let me ask around and see if that's going to be an issue. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I really do appreciate your interest in meeting notability standards on Wikipedia. Philippe06:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted a legitimate edit of mine to Institute for Advanced Study, Berlin using VP (history here). Since it was a legitimate edit, I've now reverted it back. If it was a mistake, then no harm no foul. If you don't want the sentence in that article, we can talk about it on the Talk page there. Or, if you thought it was vandalism, I'm curious why. Thanks. 71.77.5.23406:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I hate to admit that I'm not sure why I reverted that. As you point out, it sure looks like an appropriate and sourced edit. Thank you for pointing it out and reverting it. Philippe06:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your post to WP:ANI before considering nominating the article for deletion, don't forget to check if someone vandalized it prior to this request. Sometimes unexperienced users forget to check the history and banned users have no problems with messing up an article before sending a message like the one you got. Some input from a regional noticeboard is probably a good idea too. - Mgm|(talk)12:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
warning removed
I appreciate you finding that, but you'll notice that I was actually reverting vandalism (two previous spam edits) and actually accidentally reverted back to a version that wasn't clean. Given that, I'm not sure a vandalism warning was really the way I'd have gone there. I appreciate your hard work - but please be careful about templating the regulars... it can occassionally backfire. Thanks for catching my mistake! Philippe20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a link to Petticoating (the one you deleted) in the Petticoat article so people can be more aware of the consequences of such form of discipline. 71.231.210.18120:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching my error. I was patrolling for spam, and the wording was obviously crap, so I reverted it without noticing the hangon tag. My error. This is how we learn. Thanks again. Cmichael02:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
Actually, this one will probably have to go to ANI. I was first alerted to the user when I saw him advocating deletion of Intel Pentium Dual Core on Benon's talk page (the AFD tag was reverted and no afd was actually created). Then, looking through his contribs, I found that image upload, which is most certainly not GFDL or {{PD-ineligible}}. There are a lot more things to solve with him besides his username. – Chacor04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree, but I figured that when he actually requested the change (which I verified), he was making a good-faith effort, so I wanted to respond with equal good faith. I know he wasn't initially very responsive, but I want to think that he's just making some bad "first steps" and can be reformed. He's certainly indicated that willingness in my recent interactions with him, so... if you want to take it to ANI, I certainly wouldn't fight you on it. But, he appears to be working on at least one of the issues, so I'm going to hope that he's learning and reforming. Philippe04:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have one request then, can you ask him to stop striking everything on his talk page out, especially when it hasn't actually been solved? The only thing solved, as far as I can see, is his username. – Chacor04:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... I went to do it, but Coredesat beat me to it. I'll keep an eye on this one... I'm still a little itchy feelin' about this user, so I'll keep him on my watchlist. If it's just a quirky user, maybe we can get 'em on the straight and narrow. Philippe04:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Philippe. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you just post something on my Talk page if I made the Gracie Folds page wrong? Seriously...Wiki editors are supposed to assist the newcomers. Not just instantly throw something for deletion without trying to reason it out... JoshEdgar23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on your talk page... I did leave you a note there, and pointed you to the notability requirements. If you can demonstrate notability, I'm pleased to help you work on the page. Philippe23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you did. Sorry I got all in a huff. So can you help me reformat it? I didn't think it had to be too extensive...I thought it was more of a stub but there is no stub for Ben Folds in general. JoshEdgar23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the image you removed and changed.... in a section on the first chief constable, you removed the image, which was appropriate, to substitute another that frankly doesn't add anything to the article. Also, I'd encourage you to be a little less hostile on other users' talk pages. Philippe02:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes condescension begets hostility. I'm an experienced editor with an extensive and solid track record on Wikipedia. To get a template message on my talk page, disingenuously welcoming me to Wikipedia before accusing me of "experimenting" and telling me to shove off to the sandbox and not come back until I get some schooling on the welcome page is about as insulting as it gets. Personally, I would've preferred you to be up front and called me an incompetent fool instead of implying as much with a template.
As for the photos, I replaced the Chartres Brew photo (which was added by me earlier) because he has his own article and that's what it illustrates (which isn't removing content from Wikipedia, since I added more than I removed and the image is used elsewhere). There is no section on the first chief constable; the article has no sections. I uploaded these other photos specifically to illustrate the BCPP (and did use the edit summary, btw). The BCPP was a major force in the province's history, and I don't really get how you think a studio portrait of some guy in a suit illustrates that. The images I added show different aspects of the BCPP as it existed and convey as much if not more than the text of the article. If you sincerely want to contest that, then bring it over to the talk page and make your case there instead of implying I'm incompetent, ignorant, or both - that's how it's supposed to work. If these photos don't add anything to the article in your opinion, then show some courtesy and back up that opinion with constructive reasons if you can.
Perhaps before trying to school legitimate editors and making absurd allegations, you might consider brushing up on some of the guidelines yourself. I'd suggest starting with WP:AGF and WP:AHI. In light of how discouraging your authoritative actions might've been received by a less-seasoned editor, I'd also suggest WP:BITE. I appreciate the need to keep on top of vandalism and inappropriate edits, but it's no less important to avoid undermining the volunteer efforts that build Wikipedia in the process. bobanny04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely correct that you should not have gotten a templated note - ordinarily, I check to see someone's contribution history before sending a template macro: I'm not sure how I neglected that step, but I'll continue to pay attention to that in this process. I appreciate you calling it to my attention, and apologize that you were offended. Philippe15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on your talk page, the issue is notability - if you can demonstrate that CMP has notability, and provide reliable sources, you stand a better shot of keeping the article. Read the section on Notability, then see if you can demonstrate that: if you can, let me know, and I'll help you change the article to demonstrate that. Philippe14:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A taskforce dealing with LGBT publications has been proposed. If you are interested in getting involved, consider signing up at the projects' page.
Our core topics list is looking good. It's still a bit slim on LGBT history articles, non-American LGBT media, and important LGBT biographies. Do you have suggestions?
David Shankbone has done an amazing job taking photographs of LGBT celebrities. Thanks David! People interested in collaborating with him and setting up a photography taskforce should contact him or drop a note at the project's talkpage.
The LGBT Portal still needs a bit of love and attention :-). Again, any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles can be added to the gallery here. Volunteers to help out with the Portal are extremely welcome- make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage. Updates to the current news items are helpful.
Deputy coordinator elections
WikiProject LGBT studies is looking for new Deputy Coordinators to help out with various essential tasks in organising the project. To nominate yourself or contribute to the discussion, please go to: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Coordinator/May 2007. The deadline for nominations is May 5 and the elections will last a week after that.
The elections will be pretty simple- everyone just endorses their favourite candidate(s). The three with the most votes at the end of the week are the new deputy coordinators, who will assist Dev920 in keeping the project running.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, just ask Dev920. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let her know.
Aww, thanks, dear Philippe! :) It's so great to talk to a fellow Oklahoman! You know, there are so many Texans around (and good ones, don't get mad at me if you read this, Longhorns!), that every time we find each other, we gotta stick together ;) Anyway, you'd made me blush with your kind words - all I can say is, thank you! I'm not usually an IRC person, I simply dropped by tonight to see if I could find someone; but who knows, I might just get the hang of it someday ;) It's great to meet you, and please, let's keep in touch, k? Let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you, and please, do drop by my Talk page whenever you want. Cheers! :) Phaedriel - 04:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Philippe, for voting on my RfA. Although it failed, I will try to improve in the ways pointed out to me, and maybe I will become an admin next time. If you have any comments, questions, etc., you know where to go. ¿SFGiДnts!☺☻22:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed you made some spelling changes. I was interested in the capitalization of francophone, anglophone, etc. So I added a section to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) on the topic of words like that. In my opinion, WP:ENGVAR, in conjunction with the information I've added to the capitalization page, implies that the word francophone should not be capitalized in articles related to countries other than the U.S., should be capitalized in U.S.-related articles (especially when it's a noun), and should be left to the preference of the editor and not be "corrected" in articles that are not country-related. Politics of Quebec is Canada-related, so Canadian preferences should be respected. I am certain this was inadvertent, but it should become a reflex for editors making spelling changes to determine whether the spelling "mistake" they've found may be a legitimate variant. Joeldl10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing and editing. Just FYI, in doing bibliography, you generally use the capitalization of the language of publication, as I understand it. Spanish language book/article titles usally only capitalize the first word (eg.. Recordación florida instead of Recordación Florida )so technically the book/aritcle titels were correct before your edits. I did not change your edits on this page. I just point this out for your information. Rsheptak20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are entirely correct, and I'm surprised I missed that one. <mumbles> slow down... read carefully... </mumbles> Philippe20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed you left a message on my talk page about me attacking another user, but couldn't find out where exctly as my last edit on the page which was linked dates from 2005, could you point it more accurately or is it just gone? TiCPU17:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, good question - that one took a few minutes to track down. The page in question is Brunnis, which has since been set up to redirect to Lexx. But, if you look at [1] the page history, you can see what was actually on the page prior to the redirect, which an admin set up, and frankly I should have done that myself - rather than tagging it as speedy, I should have called that vandalism and reverted. Why it slapped that warning on you, I'm not sure, because it should have gone to another user - you didn't do it - someone after you did. I'm not sure why that happened, except it was a problem in the script and it shouldn't have fired it on you. Best guess, the script saw that I put a speedy on it, and it fired that warning at you since you created the page, rather than the person that the put the vandalism on it. My apologies, and I'll happily remove the warning from your talk page. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Philippe22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! I noticed you used AWB on Biology and sexual orientation and it changed two of the last names in the references from Vilain to Villain. Just wanted to let you know so that you can watch out for those kinds of incorrect changes when using AWB. Cheers, --Rkitko(talk)02:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for applying the speedy deletion template, I wasn't quite sure what to do with this one.
I left a light warning on the creators talk page.
Omega ArchdoomTalk04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have my word I'll make you a userpage, dear Philippe! Please, be patient tho - I currently have 5 requests! ;) I promise it'll be ready in a week at the very most, is that ok with you? And if you don't mind, if you have any preferences regarding color, or layout, please let me know - that'll make the task easier ;) Love Phaedriel - 01:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However I'm not sure I quite understand what pattern of unusual edits you're referring to (I don't see 3, which is coincidence as your mother says)? --PaxEquilibrium23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair question. It's not unusual edits, but unusual circumstances. I will also say that I have not spent a great deal of time paying attention to your edits prior to this RFA, so frankly, you haven't been on my radar screen. My hesitation may be simply because this is the first I've seen and I'm a little shocked by the unusual circumstances that surround you. It's entirely possible that the more I get to know you, the less I'll be concerned by those circumstances. I know adminship is not a big deal, but the access to the tools IS a big deal, and you have (at best) a previously compromised account. I tend to view that much more harshly than some others. I'm not sure I have formed an opinion on whether I believe that the account was compromised or that is a story to cover another situation. Either way, I have hesitations. However, they are not perpetually exclusive: should this RFA pass, you will have my full support (not that it matters much) because the community will have spoken. Should it not pass, I will continue to observe you and fully develop my feelings and it is entirely possible that I will support you, should you choose to stand for adminship again. I do NOT include in my reasons for a lack of support the fact that you've stood before: it frankly doesn't matter to me how many times you stand for this, and I'm happy to put that in writing, obviously.
I am, however, impressed with your ability to accept constructive criticism and to quickly take action on it. That shows an impressive point of character, and went in your "plusses" column in my book, frankly.
I guess, in summary, I just need to see more plusses to offset the large number of unknown factors in your past. I'm pleased that you approached me for clarification, and happy to give it. You have my support and respect as a person; I'm just not sure that I'm quite ready to endorse for adminship. The good news is, in the grand scheme of things, I certainly don't carry any votes with me... I doubt anyone changes their mind based upon the power of my suggestion. I do, sincerely, wish you the very best. Philippe02:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's a fair answer. ;)
Since this RfA is very likely going to fail (only 60% support, and only with deducting the several highly controversial results of votestacking; I myself wouldn't support a candidate that had that kind a huge controversial Oppose section), it doesn't really matter.
P.S. Yes, your vote does matter. As per the Comments and the Talk page, I said I will withdraw the RfA if I see a single strong reason why I should not be an administrator.
I would also like to hear someone say if the death hoax has made it impossible for me to ever get adminship. I would gladly accept that, evading the situation of several people who just keep opposing. --PaxEquilibrium07:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to suggest this, but... given the current percentages, have you consider a snowball withdrawl? I think it might be better for you, long term, to withdraw than to fail to reach consensus again. Please understand I intend no offense by this suggestion. Philippe 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. Looking at it again, depending on how many of the opposes are disallowed, there's still a chance. That makes it an uphill battle, not a snowball situation. Forget I asked. Philippe01:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the withdrawing is that which occurred - the first time I withdrew because I was an inexperienced prick, a fool with the desire for petty admin tools (who would quite possibly misuse them), and the latter was withdrawn by the bureaucrats because of numerous nationalist votestacking (that appears to be re-appearing, although to a much lesser extent, at least for now).
One administrator (can't remember which precisely) has advised me to let at least one RfA last to the end, properly. ;)
Many thanks for your kind words. To be honest, with the whole Betacommand arbitration case I felt it was important that there were findings of fact that Beta made a mistake, but I still think it was wrong that he lost the tools - arbitration could have been a final warning to him, but I guess the arbitrators didn't see it that way. What I don't think people understood was that Betacommand's activity level is massive, he's got far more edits than most people, so obviously he will have made more mistakes - it's just sad we lost one of our best backlog clearing admins. I hope I've lived upto expectations. Thanks once again, Ryan Postlethwaite14:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Philippe. Thank you very much for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you spot me messing things up, please feel free to shout at me :) Have a super day! ~ Yours faithfully,PeaceNT11:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monthly Challenge: June Stub Review! Take a moment and sift through the roughly 3,600 Stub-class LGBT articles. Are they still stubs? If not, make an assessment change. Even better, do you see anything you can add/edit to increase the rating? Let's see if the project can lower the number of stubs down below 3,000!
Project News
WP:LGBT Exceeds 200 Members!!
Two editors have been selected by project members as co-coordinators. Their duties are still a bit unclear, but having a few more janitors around the project will help keep us running smoothly. Please feel free to message Fireplace or SatyrTN if you have any project questions or concerns.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, just ask Dev920. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let her know.
I am proposing a page move of Astronaut Memorial. You have edited that page in the last month. Normally I wouldn't spam user pages, but since that page does not see much action at all, and I don't want to go thru the work of fixing re-directs if people end up disagreeing, I'm soliciting your opinion prior to the move. If you don't care, or if you only edited the article for anti-vandalism or copyedit work, please ignore this message and accept my apologies for the interruption. Otherwise, please comment at Talk:Astronaut Memorial. --barneca (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting some of my spelling errors on the Tulsa Philharmonic page. I know I need a citation at that one spot but unfortunately my knowledge there comes through personal experience. I have many friends/ teachers who were part of the Tulsa Phil in its latter years and so I have somewhat of an insiders point of view on the orchestra. Unfortunately I am unable to find a source that talks about the internal financial issues and missmanagements in writing. Do you know of any? I am currently trying to find some other sources on the orchestra's history. The orchestra exsisted for 54 years and there is surprisingly very little information available about it anywhere on the web. - Nrswanson05:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)nrswanson[reply]
No problem, I'm happy to help with spelling and such issues - those are the sort of things I tend to work on. As for finding a citation, that's harder - if I were you I'd probably call Tim McFadden or Marta Mattes at the Symphony office and find out if there was anything published that we could refer to. The other thing you might try is a search of the Tulsa World's archives. If there's not, we really need to take that statement out (although I tend to agree with it) as unverified. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if it can't be proven with Reliable Sources, then we can't publish it. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, and welcome to Wikipedia. Philippe | Talk05:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I will try communicating with them sometime this week. Does wikipedia allow interview sources? or is it strictly limmitted to written sources? I have also created pages for Light Opera Oklahoma and the Tulsa Symphony Orchestra today if you wouldn't mind looking at them too. Always good to have an extra set of eyes. :-)Nrswanson06:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking up on those for me and helping me figure out wiki. I am currently doing the Music Man and Sweeney Todd with LOOK so that's why I put the page up. Hopefully it will help garner interest for the shows. I have several friends/ former teachers in TSO so that's why I started that page. I put next season's schedule on there in the hopes that people would get interested in going to see the orchestra. In doing the LOOK page I noticed there is no Tulsa Ballet or Tulsa PAC article so those are my next couple projects.Nrswanson06:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do know Casey. Actually I fill in for Eric at Trinity when he is sick or out of town so I met him first through doing music at church before LOOK. I do not know Casey well though. Have a good night!
I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule, but I think we usually use the flag under which the subject was born. He was born in 1952, when the 48-star flag was in use. Biruitorul03:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I read WP:Flag, which says: The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is strongly deprecated, as flags imply nationality. Based on that, I'm just going to remove the flag from that infobox. - Philippe | Talk03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That too is fine with me, as I don't much like the proliferation of those little flags, which seem to be everywhere. I think readers will be fine without a little pictogram to guide them. Biruitorul04:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I very rarely nominate for speedy delete (not that I've been a Wikipedian so long). I am not an admin, and was not the one that actually deleted it:
09:36, June 14, 2007 Daniel (Talk | contribs) deleted "Geoff Bell (broadcaster)" (CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance)
Hi Philippe, Thank you for your comments at my RfA. Let me know if I can help you and feel free to let me know if I mess up anywhere. Cheers. Shyamal03:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a template? It looks a lot more helpful to a newbie posting their own biography than the standard nn-warn template. Thanks! Iknowyourider (tc) 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assume that you made a mistake just now reverting my edits to history of video games. This was the continuation of a major update that I began last month and included no vandalism. I think you need to explain yourself. As a long-standing and influential contributor, I am sure that this was not done out of malice, but it is nonetheless confusing. Indrian22:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with these was the POV from which they were written. For instance:
considered the first great racing game by providing the most realistic racing action yet seen in the arcade as well as being..."
Considered by whom? Do you have sources to validate that? That's subjective text, which we normally don't tend to include in Wikipedia. If you can come up with valid third party sources to back that up, please list them using the appropriate citation tools. Otherwise, I'd encourage you to consider rewriting, which is what I was leaving on the talk page when you wrote me here. :-) - Philippe | Talk22:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I do have sources, including High Score: The Illustrated History of Video Games and The Video Games Guide, though, granted, I did not cite them on the page. Second, the appropriate course of action would be to put a citation needed tag or raise the concern on the talk page, which I assume you must be aware. Third, having a problem with a single line is no excuse to revert a massive edit. I assume you do not know much about video game history and would appreciate it if in the future you bring any concerns to the article talk page or through use of tags rather than reckless reverts. I appreciate and respect your concern for the integrity of the encyclopedia; I only ask that you discuss before resorting to reversion. Indrian23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I had a problem with a single line - I said that was an example of them. I felt the writing was significantly POV - revertion was the easiest way to clear it out - and as I said, I was in the process of leaving a message on the talk, but cancelled it, since you brought it here. I'm sorry you disagreed with my actions, and hope that you understand I was acting in good faith. I believe you were as well. I'm sure you understand that to see that sentence, among others, it looked like a POV edit. Since you have sources, I encourage you to add them, and then we can all move on. Wish you the best... - Philippe | Talk02:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you were acting in good faith and do not believe there is a major problem between us. My only request is that in the future on this video game history article that you take any concerns you have to the talk page or leave tags instead of blanket reverts. I do plan to source the article as part of a massive overhaul that will probably take many months, and the page as it exists now is a massive work in progress. I have yet to make any claims in the article that are controversial to one who knows the history of video games, which is why your revert particularly took me aback. I do not claim to be perfect and may make a mistake or cross the POV line at some point, but discussing the issues will be a better way to resolve the problem than reverting. Anyway, this may be too much discussion over what I am sure for you was just one small edit among dozens, but this is a large project for myself so I find it important to discuss. You certainly do not have to reply and may end this dialogue at your discretion. I wish you the best as well. Indrian02:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun.
Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends!
My dear Philippe, I couldn't possibly leave your beautiful wishes unreplied, not coming from one of the most wonderful guys I've met here. To my shame, your userpage design still sits at my sandbox, unfinished; rest assured you'll be surprised in a matter of days (cross fingers! ;) Love you, mon ami. Hugs, Phaedriel - 11:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, you were a little quick on the trigger there...first of all, it was a STUB. Second of all, i was in the process of completing it. Because of your deletion, 20 minutes of edits were never "Saved"... my suggestion is that you put a WARNING message up before deleting...so at least you can judge it more fully. Since i did not save my work, i'm not motivated to go back and complete again.
I'm sorry you feel frustrated by the deletion of that article. The article was tagged for speedy deletion (thus, warned) at 05:29 UTC and deleted at 05:42 UTC. Sometimes Speedy Delete is just that... speedy. But, I'll say in defense of both myself and the other editor (the one who tagged it for speedy), when we saw the article, it consisted of ONLY a couple of links. There was no sign that anyone was working on it. To our eyes, it was a link without context or any explanation at all. So, we took the appropriate action: the other article placed a notice of speedy deletion on it, and then about 15 minutes later, I deleted the article. If you'd like to recreate the article at some point, which I hope you will, I'd suggest that you have more than a link in it the first time you save the article. That way, this won't happen again. Again, I apologize that you're frustrated. - Philippe | Talk17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phillippe, thank you for your explanation--i'm glad there was some time "delta" between flagging and deletion. Unfortunately i was too busy editing the other 95% of the article to notice either. I apparetnly pushed "save" pre-maturely, and did not realize there was only one link on it (it was midnight EDT, after all). It's too bad that WP does not have a "save to temp" file that a post-deletion edit can go into...cause i pushed save and it all disappeared due to the "Deletion" status. So that was a complete waste of 30 minutes and i really don't feel like spending the 30 minutes writing it up again--it was not the primary focus area of my research. But since I had all the resource info in front of me at the time, so i decided to WP a favor and write up a STUB for on of Victoria's key citizens and supply some links and resources for another editor to improve upon it later on. SINCE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ATTEND THE WP COUNCILS, CAN YOU SUGGEST A "POST-DELETE LOG" THAT WOULD HOLD ITEMS SAVED AFTER A DELETION. It seems like a relatively simple feature technically, and I think it would reduce a lot of frustration due to lost work. Thanks.
Sxfranklin19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it was not our intention to make blatant advertizing to DASH signature but to record its history, the links to product pages shouldn't have been there, but you deleted the page before we're able to fix that, <sigh>
So we'll try to rewrite the page in different form ok?
Why did you revert my edits to this user's profile? It is well documented that the edits I made are factual, and the user has not had the option to decide if he wants it on his profile or not.71.197.197.10002:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, see, here's the thing - you don't get to call people juvenile names on Wikipedia. We tend to take a dim view of that. Why not pick a nice article to improve instead? Oh, and by the way... we have civility rules here. - Philippe | Talk02:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have the worst name. I bet you are a huge nerd that will never kiss a girl because you are really pale and edit wikipedia all day. Get a life!!! Oh, maybe you will kiss a wikibabe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiadrew (talk • contribs)
Well, for what it's worth, kissing girls isn't all that interesting to me. There are other folks around who might enjoy it, but... I sure appreciate you sharing your opinion though. (And he's not so far off on the amount of time spent editing wikipedia.)- Philippe | Talk03:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm a nerd, and girls = yucky, but for the record... I'm not huge. Slightly pudgy, perhaps, but definitely not huge. - Philippe | Talk20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! YOU CRACKED THE CODE! My secret identity is out! Foiled again! One of these days I'll upload a real picture of myself - not just one of those paparazzi ones that always grace the cover of People magazine. - Philippe | Talk20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monthly Challenge: Submit an article to our Jumpaclass competition! Languishing unloved, it is a great way to improving that article you always meant to improve but never got round to. Challenge someone else to go head to head and see who can improve their article most!
Our Deputy Coordinators have been doing a fabulous job so far. Well done!
The portal is now looking very snazzy, well done to Fireplace for all his hard work.
The list of LGBT people to be sorted has now beed reduced by 20%. Please help us with it, all of us adding just one person a day would have a dramatic effect!
The Core Topics is now largely complete. The original aim of getting some kind of publication out of it is extremely long term - any short term uses we can make of it are welcome on the project talkpage.
A suggestion was made this month that we start our own wiki. Although the conclusion was that we felt we were a part of Wikipedia rather than a stand alone organisation, it seems there is an LGBT wiki already, at http://lgbt.wikia.com/wiki/Main_page . Members may be interested in getting involved there.
The Collaboration is now getting rather short on suggestions. Article nominations for August through December would be welcome on the talkpage.
There is now a list of Missing LGBT Topics. Help is needed to work out which topics can be made redirects or need to be created. Please contribute is you can.
An LGBT banner that was created for Wikipedia's internal ads system has now been adapted so it can be placed on blogs and websites. The html is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LGBT"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Qxz-ad48.gif" height="53" width="445"></a> Please credit Miranda and link to her userpage: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miranda">Miranda</a>. The banner can be seen in action here. If you have a blog or a website, please consider adding the banner, either in a post or as part of your profile.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Ryan Postlethwaite would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Ryan Postlethwaite to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philippe. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign 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.
Ryan, thank you for the nomination, I'm honored. I've started to draft my answers, and once I get some things wrapped up (24 hours or so?) I'll transclude the page. Again, thank you - you're very kind. - Philippe | Talk02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Philippe. I just wanted to let you know that I deleted your recent addition to the Tulsa article regarding the move to One Technology Center. I did this because we have been debating whether to include this in the article for a while and I had some reservations about it, which I have begun to discuss again on the talk page. I was wondering if you would like to participate in the discussion there. Again, sorry I removed your addition but as a featured article we just want to make absolutely sure that we resolve the issue of including the city hall move before entering it into the article. Normally I would never delete someone's contribution. On another note, I look forward to working with you on Taskforce Tulsa articles also, as I see you've listed your name on there. Thanks! And I apologize again. Okiefromokla•talk22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sweet, dear Philippe, I'm truly sorry I wasn't around when you sent me that beautful message, because I truly feel, with all my heart, that I have a precious friend in you too... and one that wasn't aware you weren't an admin yet, otherwise, I'd have nominated you myself! Fortunately, I'm in time to support you ;) It's truly beautiful to know you're around, sweetie - even if we don't talk everyday, I feel happier to feel you around me. Love you, lots, Phaedriel - 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on becoming an admin. I hereby present you with this Vandal whacking stick. May it serve you well. WjBscribe09:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations sir, it was an honour to have nominated you! You know where I am if you want any help, advice, or just want a little chit chat! Ryan Postlethwaite21:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the deletion log of Loserz itself. Seems they have a hard time taking "no" for an answer here. I'd also point to minor IP vandalisms, but these are the major things... Good enough? :P -WarthogDemon04:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I salted Talk:Loserz, because it's been deleted a ton. I'm loathe to salt Talk:Loserz Webcomic because I only see one delete on it. I know they're persistent, and I'll watch it... if it gets deleted again, I'll salt it. I'm hoping they'll just leave it alone, and we don't have to have a created and salted page sitting around out there. If I miss it and it comes back, let me know and I'll get at it then. :-) - Philippe | Talk04:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this article reinstated. It was wrong for User:Nuttah68 to place for speedy deletion when a discussion could have fixed whatever problem he has with it. Addiction Foods is the only pet food manufacturer lon the planet using kangaroo and common brushtail possum as a primary meat. Noles198416:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I think I'd AfD it. There's enough there that it's not a speedy, I don't think, but I don't think notability is firmly established. - Philippe | Talk03:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm new. I created the page Ernie's House of Whoop Ass and someone marked it as speedy deletion. I tried to add the hangon tag and added my rationale to the Talk page for the article, but you deleted the page in very short time period between the hangon edit and my submission of a Talk comment. First, I disagree with the deletion and feel the article might not have been deleted if you had heard my reasoning. Second, the extremely short time between then notification of speedy deletion and the time I posted the Talk comment was way too short. I do not understand how anyone new to Wikipedia could feel welcome to enter the huge and mysterious process editing Wikipedia seems to be if I do not even get the chance to defend my edits or get the courtesy of a helpful explanation. Sure, after the speedy deletion edit, I received an explanation of how to counter the tag, but I wasn't allowed enough time to counter the tag before the article was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impmope (talk • contribs)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry the experience has been frustrating for you - I hope I can help you out some. The reason I deleted the article is because it failed our notability standards. If you read our notability policy, it explains what we consider to be appropriately notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and unfortunately, nothing in the article struck me as particularly unusual or notable. If you'd like to draft an article and then let me know where it is, I can glance at it before you post it and provide you with suggestions that might help out. I strongly suggest, though, that you begin by reading our notability standards. I'm also going to drop a quick "welcome" notice on your userpage that might give you some good hints. - Philippe | Talk03:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to reconsider verbose censorship. I am not sure you even comprehend what you delete. The irony is this; you are expressing yourself by your imposition the validation of the subject matter. These ideas will prevail with or without you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugewindow (talk • contribs)
<grin> You're right... it MUST be that I deleted it because I didn't understand the concept. All those pesky ideas and things. The thing is, Wikipedia isn't a place for original research - it's an encyclopedia. In fact, we even have a rule about that: WP:OR. - Philippe | Talk03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what folks think. I'd particularly like to see discussion that doesn't center around the last-edit date, because something similar to this is likely to come up again, and I'm curious how the community feels. - Philippe | Talk04:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What surface would this vandals be defacing? oh...right! I get it!
Enjoy stroking your ego in a very un orginal manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hugewindow (talk • contribs).
Well, that's probably up to the vandal, isn't it? But then, it's your mind that took you there... <grin> I'm sorry that you and I don't agree on that article. I hope you'll take the time to read a couple of our policies (the policy on notability and the policy on original research) and maybe have another go at it. I'd be happy to scan something before you posted it to be sure that it was appropriate to our purposes, if you want. In any case, please remember to sign your talk page comments by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. That makes it easier for us to sort through who left what. - Philippe | Talk04:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this article was deleted before. Someone rewrote it and I added a cites from XXL (magazine) stating the release date and tracklisting. Is that not considered a reliable source? It is indeed a major magazine. MrBlondNYC13:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - the issue in this case wasn't so much reliable sources, it's that the article went through a valid articles for deletion process. Once it goes through that, and the community decides that it should be deleted, the best way to bring it back is to first approach the original deleting admin (in this case User:Daniel Case, I think) and see if he'll bring it back to let you work on it. If that doesn't work, send it through deletion review. Otherwise, we'd just have people re-creating articles all over the place. If you think you can source it (and I'd go with more than one reliable source - people usually want to see multiple reliable sources), you can mention that at the deletion review. Without a valid DRV or Admin agreement, you're probably going to see the article continually deleted, because admins are going to take very seriously the community's wishes from AfD. Hope this helps some... if you have any other questions, let me know. I'll help you any way that I can. - Philippe | Talk13:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your deletion of Anti-tank dog. I'd been reading the source given and the text didn't seem to match up exactly. There's also the fact that it gave the Wikipedia article, which predated it by a year, as a source. Let me know if you disagree. Leithp18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, and in fact, had just changed my mind and was un-deleting it when I got notice that it had already been done. - Philippe | Talk18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you deleted it because you saw no assertion of notability in Tiga's article? Tiga (musician) asserts notability in several ways: several of his singles have reached the top 100 on national charts (criteria 2), he's won a Juno Award (criteria 8), he's produced "widely known" remixes, he's collaborated with notable people, etc. Even if you feel that article doesn't assert notability, I think that being part of a notable compilation series (DJ-Kicks) should establish the album's notability in the same way that being by a notable artist would. Are you planning to delete Tiga (musician) as well?--P4k02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, hadn't looked that closely at it. I'll evaluate it though. I'm curious, though, why this article is not included in a discography section on the artist's article though? - Philippe | Talk02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked from Tiga's article, I'm not saying all of the content in DJ-Kicks: Tiga is reproduced in Tiga (musician). Are you saying that you think it would be better to include all the content on the album article on Tiga's page? Personally I think having a seperate article is a better way to divide the information; that way people who aren't interesting in reading the tracklist or whatever don't have to scroll past it, and it's easier to link to from other articles. It just seems more well-organized to me. The thing is, this is actually irrelevant. If your concern is notability then you shouldn't have deleted the article; albums aren't covered under csd a7.--P4k03:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tell you what - I encourage you to take it to DRV. I'll abide by the community's feelings. It's entirely possible I'm not totally calibrated to them. - Philippe | Talk05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this will sound flip or placating, and I hope you understand my sincerity when I say that I'm sorry that's the case. I really am. I don't want anyone to have a frustrating experience on wiki, that's not what we're here for. In all fairness, I tend to be a little deletionist in my outlook, and I really don't want to get into a theoretical discussion, that's why I invited you to take it to DRV. I appreciate that you took the time to bring it to the deleting admin, and that you were willing to engage in discussion about it (and initiated the discussion). Again, I'm sorry it was frustrating for you. - Philippe | Talk06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give you a heads up, I'm planning to take this speedy deletion to DRV soon. I've already partly discussed this on tagger Ten Pound Hammer's RfA, where I and Paxse have given reasons why we thought it shouldn't have been deleted (we're opposes #10 and #13). To add to those, her raw Ghit count of about 20K[2] is pretty good considering that a) Malaysia is a country with a smaller population and is less wired, and b) her peak of popularity seems to have been around 2000-2002, and she's also got 50 News Archive hits[3]. This, combined with her "Most Popular TV Actress" ABP Awards, seems to show that she's a popular actress in Malaysia. I'll hold off for at least a few hours to give you a chance to undelete it yourself, if this has changed your mind. --Groggy DiceT | C18:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Groggy Dice, thank you for doing me the courtesy of notifying me that you intended to take it to DRV. I appreciate that, very much. I've just reviewed the previously deleted version of the article and see no assertion of notability - the article was basically just a list of a few films that she acted in, with no discussion about critical laud, awards, or even whether the roles were major. There's nothing in the article to suggest notability, so I think that I'm going to stand by my deletion. However, I looks forward to seeing the discussion at DRV, and wish you the best in this and all your editing. - Philippe | Talk18:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm football illiterate, and the George Elokobi thing went right over my head. Had I seen that, I'd have done indefinite from the beginning. Should have anyway, I was being way too nice. - Philippe | Talk21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to err on the side of caution, anyway. You stopped the depredation long enough for us to actually investigate instead of just cleaning his messes... --Fire Star 火星01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure if this is where im supposed to post but you block my other account AntiGayAllegiance for supposally adding more promotional content. well what i did was i deleted everything from the page so it was blank and you could delete it. I didn't add anything i just deleted everything. Please unblock my other account AntiGayAllegiance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AntiGayAlliegence (talk • contribs).
On what basis did you delete E-JASL: The Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship ? The reasons say db-A7 ad, but there is no such category, and hoax, and hoaxes are no speediable. Possibly you meant db as web content without an assertion of notability? Possible G11, advertisement? In either case, please undelete so I can fix the tone, for its perfectly real, and indexed in the major indexing service in the field, as it says right in the article.
On what basis did you delete Dr. Urmila Pachouri and Dr. Pramod Pachouri ? You deleted as A7, but the article asserts notability. I agree the notability is quite doubtful, but a prod would have been appropriate , or an afd.
Princess consort of Monaco is a short list, and there is no reason to think it so un-encylopedic as to be worth a speedy. If its controversial, it has to go to afd, and such lists are always controversial.
Victor Vinatonni dbA7 only applies to real people, not fictional ones. Please recheck WP:CSD.
and so on. I only mention a few. I know you're new at this. I know that there are different attitudes, and I also know that some people tend to think me reluctant to delete articles, but if you will look at my delete log you'll see otherwise. We are supposed to investigate speedies before deleting, we are not supposed to just go on the word of the person who placed he tag, and I do not see how anyone can do 1 per minute and get them all right. Let me suggest that you go more cautiously at first. You dont have to clear out everything yourself. When I started, i started with the really obvious. Even so, a couple of more experienced admins spoke to me quite sharply about what I had thought was obvious. DGG (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to ask. I appreciate it. I'd like to say that while these might have had the action taken within a minute, through the beauty of multiple browser tabs, I do, in fact, investigate them before I do anything with them. I'm not fond of your implication that I don't investigate the speedies - in fact, I do, but I appreciate that you took the time to come to me with your concerns and I thank you for that. I will take a look at these at some point tonight as I'm doing some other work, and will get your some answers. In the meantime, I'll absolutely undelete E-JASL for you as you request. - Philippe | Talk01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On you user page, you have a toolbox with alot of different functions and wikipedia code on them. Do you mind if I use your toolbox as a references when i am editing articles and looking for templates.? also, is it possible to copy the toolbox onto my userpage (ill make one of those sub-page thingies or whatever they're called so that it doesn't appear on my userpage.) I can reference you aswell if you grant me the permission to use it. Thank you for your time. GBenemy(talk)04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you're totally right. You just tagged it for speedy. Sorry about that, I fired the macro at the wrong person! Thanks for pointing it out. - Philippe | Talk22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd start with that, and a point to WP:BLP. I might also run it through AFD and see what they think about it. I think the claim of notability is sketchy at best, and would also like to see some references. Good catch. - Philippe | Talk23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you just keep the article A Second To Last, I did everything I could for it. Maybe you can help me out with it. I spent WAY too long on it for you to just delete it. I read the guidelines, and I don't see anything for why it got deleted. Help me out, it took me 4 hours to create that page, and you deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis0123456789 (talk • contribs)
This page was just deleted, since it was noted to be with the "speedy" designation and all. I understand it is your job to delete these as they come up, so I don't really have an issue with that. However, I was looking up info to add to the page, (which i probably shouldve labeled as a musician stub to being with) when it was deleted. He is the only member of the band he performs with that does not have a wiki page. How much info/sources/links should be gathered up before submitting the initial article so it doesnt get marked for speedy deletion? And how long should I wait before resubmitting the article? Ocstat04:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Since you were working on the page while it got deleted, I recreated it for you in your userspace - you can find the page at User:Ocstat/Matt Miller. If you want to continue to work on it, and then let me know I'll be glad to take a look at it before you move it back into main space and give you suggestions. Generally speaking, you're going to want multiple reliable sources that will establish notability for musicians. I know that's fairly broad, but I'm not sure exactly what's out there on this guy, so it's hard to answer specifically. Keep working on it, then let me know and I'll take a look at it before it's moved into mainspace and hopefully that will keep it live. Thanks! - Philippe | Talk04:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saving the page for me. I'll try to spice it up a bit before submitting it again. I took a look at the notability for musicians link, and while Matt Miller doesnt nessecarilly meet those requirements himself, the band he performs with, Sparta does. So, basically, the article just needs some more information, correct? Ocstat04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in a case like that, I'd be more inclined to suggest that you fold all the musicians' individual pages into the band page - otherwise, you always run the risk of someone saying that he doesn't meet the notability requirements and starting this process over. If you can write it clearly enough that he as a member of the band clearly meets them, you stand a shot though. I'm happy I could help you out. Let me know if you want me to take a look at it. - Philippe | Talk04:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page is just about done, if you would like to take a look at it and tell me if it is up to par, that would be greatly appreciated!Ocstat07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've made some definite improvements to the page, thank you for doing that. If I may make one suggestion, though, it's to include in the lead paragraph (maybe right after you mention Sparta) something that establishes their notability. Sparta is the first band to win 1,000 awards in one night... or something of that nature - whatever it is that satisfies WP:MUSIC for them. After that, I think we may be headed the right direction. - Philippe | Talk15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am pretty sure the page now meets the requirements set for it. It would be appreciated if you could take one last look. Thanks again!Ocstat21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent> - I made a couple of changes to bump the assertion of notability up in the article - it was kind of buried. Feel free to revert them if you think it kills the flow. I think there's enough there to survive speedy, based on both the charted hit and the international tour. In fact, based on WP:MUSIC I absolutely support keeping this article now. I'll reverse my previous judgment and put it out in mainspace now.
This article, which you deleted on 22 July for A11, has been restored, word-for-word, by User: Phil Sandifer, on 26 July. I concur with your decision to delete and ask that you revisit the page and reverse the undelete. All any reader need do is read the article and s/he will see content that sounds like it was lifted from a press release or the album cover, i.e., blatant advertising. Thank you. 72.76.2.16911:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the page has been through a valid deletion review, I am satisfied that our process has been upheld. I'm not willing to get into a delete/undelete war over this one. Obviously there were people who thought it belonged, including admins, so while I still am not sure it does, I'm not going to re-delete the page. At this point, the best choice is to send it through AfD if you feel strongly about it. Thanks! - Philippe | Talk15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page was deleted. I know why it was according to the policy. But how then does a music band for instance get theri info into wiki? I added the author's info to look and sound just like a band profile. What needs to be done. Something of importance? Won't being the first and only "heavy metal author and novelist" be of importance enough to be warrented?
Hi Frostlands - you may want to read Wikipedia's standards for notability of a band. It tells what makes a band notable enough for inclusion into the encyclopedia. Does the band fit those standards? If so, draft a page about them in your own userspace, and then let me know and I'll look at it and tell you whether I think it's a strong enough statement of notability to justify their inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you put it up before there's appropriate notability evidence listed, chances are it will keep getting deleted until we simply won't allow the page to be created any more. - Philippe | Talk16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found where you speedied it while it was up for AFD [4]. When you speedy delete an article which is already up for AFD, please also note that action in the AFD, because otherwise there is some confusion about who deleted it, and other editors have to make the appropriate changes to the AFD. For some reason, speedy deletions do not show up in an admin's contribution history. Thanks. Edison21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:TenPoundHammer is quite a Wikignome, running around noting that AFDs have been speedy deleted, but sometimes it looks like he is the one who did the speedy deletion, when he is only exercising the mop with great diligence, but without being an admin. Edison04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that. I realized that the comment was too harsh and in violation of WP:NPA, and was about to change it when you issued the block, thus you saw the original version. Thank you for blocking him in any case. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reinstate that page as it is not a club, company. It is an event that holds a big historical significance in the USC-UCLA rivalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclongshot (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry, no - it's a group of people participating in an event that has not, for the purposes of the encyclopedia, been demonstrated to hold notability. If you can demonstrate, using reliable third party sources that this event has significance to the greater world, I'd be happy to look at it with you. Unfortunately, I don't see any reason at this point that it should be included. Does the event have greater historical value? Greater sociological value? Is it something that we as a culture can learn from? If you can honestly answer those questions "yes", then I'll be happy to move the page to your userspace for you so that you can continue to work on the article - then, once you think it's ready for inclusion, I'd be glad to tell you whether I believe it meets the notability standards before you move it back to the encyclopedia. However, I can tell you now that I have my doubts about whether this event will ever qualify for inclusion. - Philippe | Talk13:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the semi-protection on this page. You added a notice on the talk page for Nicola Legrottaglie. I took the liberty of adding sprotected tag to the article's page, igf you don't mind. Thanks. Alexf(t/c) 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed you speedily deleted this article, and I was just wondering why one wouldn't consider being a member of a notable band to be at least an assertion of notability. Having removed one of the wikilinks from the band's article, you were obviously aware of this. --Maxamegalon200015:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. That particular article page caught my attention when it was tagged for speedy delete - it appeared to have almost no content, and frankly, I missed the sentence that he was the lead singer for a particular band. What was missing altogether was any explanation of why that band is notable, which would make sense in this article. However, all that is required is proof of why HE is notable, which there clearly was. I'll reinstate the article. As to the wikilink, it's removed automatically by my script tool (Twinkle) when I delete a page - I didn't actually ever see the Hawk Nelson article... no conspiracy theories, please. :-)
Just don't let anyone know I did it -- I'll lose my rep as a deletionist. ;) (I do think the best thing is to redirect to the main article since there's not much about the person that can be said that is verifiable, but ... eh.) -- Merope15:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's give 'em a chance to flesh it out first though. Who knows, maybe they can turn it into a really good article? If'n it stays a stub for too long though, I think a redirect might be in order. - Philippe | Talk15:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've actually put the AfD tag back, because I'm as unsure as you guys are about whether he merits an article or not, but I'm reasonably sure he's not a speedy candidate. --Maxamegalon200016:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the AfD tag really should come off, because that AfD was closed. If we want to renominate him, we need to start from scratch, but that AfD tag leads to the OLD afd. You were right, he wasn't a speedy candidate. - Philippe | Talk16:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the restoration. I was curious about the closing myself. I actually would have liked to have seen the AfD continue, as I am curious about bands and notability. I would assume that if a band is notable, the members would have to inherit that notability. A band wouldn't be as such, without members, just as a record cannot be notable without the band inheriting the notability. Any thoughts? the_undertowtalk18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling is that the band itself is notable (and thus entitled to an article) but the members of the band do not automatically inherit that notability. So, if the member has done anything in particular to gain notability (ie, Bono), they get a page. If not, the band gets a page with all the members listed in sections thereon. Again, that's nothing but gut feeling and I'd like to see it play out. - Philippe | Talk18:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's almost a "chicken/egg" situation, isn't it? What came first, the band or the players? And which is more important? None of them are notable without the band, but the band doesn't exist without the players. - Philippe | Talk19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just blew my mind. This really should be a situation to propose a modification to WP:BAND if we could find the forum to gather consensus. the_undertowtalk20:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the correct title is "BIMUN - Bonn International Model United Nations"
the log said
"06:07, 27 July 2007 Philippe (Talk | contribs) deleted "BIMUN - Bonn International Model United Nations"
Thanks, that helps. I deleted it because it's an article about a group or club that does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. If you believe that you have reliable sources that could demonstrate notability for this group, I'd be happy to un-delete it to your userspace so that you can work on it. Once that's done, if you'd let me know, I could look over it and determine whether I believe it meets our requirements before you move it back to Main-space. However, I'd warn you that it would really take some considerable press coverage to meet those requirements for this group, I think. - Philippe | Talk19:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please un-delete it to my userspace so I can work on it and add sources. Thanks!
See, these are the kind of important details that would help at AIV. :-) Sure, I'm blocking him now. I had no idea who you thought he was a sockpuppet from the report. - Philippe | Talk01:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely understand - I'm loathe to block without issuing any warnings though - if we both keep an eye on him, and he keeps it up, let me know and I'll indef block. - Philippe | Talk03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hulk Hogan has visited you! Hulk "somehow" promotes WikiLove and wants you to be happy today, and hopefully he has managed to make your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Come on now, go and make someone happy today, or Hulk will hug you till you choke, dear Philippe! :) Happy editing! - Phaedriel - 12:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear Philippe! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 12:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the short time we've shared, the small seed of friendship we sowed months ago has already become a charming, beautiful flower, my dear Philippe. May you have a wonderful vacation, and rest assured I'll be eagerly waiting for your return! :) Lots of xxx, Sharon
Hi, regarding my reporting him at AIV: I can understand why you wouldn't want to block him, but since other users had given him a "final warning", I didn't really want to warn him again with out reporting him. I wouldn't characterize his edits at Lars Larson as "good-faith" or a content dispute, however. We would be willing to hear why he wants to make those changes (even after a particulary POV edit that was removed) but even after numerous attempts to get him to communicate, all he does is revert. Incidentally several of us previously reverted edits following a similar pattern from a user with a different agenda. diff. I don't think any of us who revert the edits to that article are fans of the subject by any stretch of the imagination, but Picapole seems bent on showing Larson in a negative light. And there is a bit of a difference between "conservative" and "right-wing". Any suggestions besides continuing to monitor the article? Katr6721:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Katr67 - thanks for taking the time to contact me. I hope I can explain my reasoning, and maybe we can come up with a solution... first, when I say that the edits are "good-faith", that's a very particular definition for this purpose - that is, the edit is not intended to cause vandalism. Vandalism, for the purposes of administrative actions, can only consist of edits that are intended to do harm, or are so egregious that they actually do hard to the wiki. On WP:AIV, we intercede to protect the wiki.
So, given that, POV edits are not automatically vandalism, though in some cases they can be. I know it's frustrating to have to keep monitoring that page and reverting him, and frankly, if it continues too much longer I'll probably get it through my skull that it really is vandalism, but for now I'm assuming good faith. There may be another admin who would take action on it, but I tend to be fairly cautious. I'd encourage you to try out one of our dispute resolution steps - they may serve as the strong wake-up call that is needed here.
In the meantime, I'll add the article to my watchlist and keep an eye on things - unfortunately, that doesn't do a great deal of immediate good, since I'm leaving the country tomorrow and won't have internet access for a bit, but I can check on it when I get back, and there are several other admins who have my talk page on their watchlist and I know they'll keep an eye on things as well.
Hi Philippe, thanks for your quick response. I get exactly what you're saying. I think our previous vandal/POV pusher on that article was reverting more quickly and agressively, thus when reported at AIV, he was blocked--several times, which was indeed a wake-up call. I've seen this sort of slow edit war thing before and with an editor who won't communicate, mediation and the like don't seem to be much help. The thing is, they usually get bored and go away at some point, but it sure is tedious waiting them out. I did leave him/her a bit more personalized message asking for some cooperation, sometimes that does the trick... Have a nice trip! Katr6721:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re your comment "This user's last edit to that page was on 7/29. Any action taken now would be punitive, rather than preventative. Decline block."
When would a block be preventative? Before someone has ever edited? That's a little impossible. How in the name of all that is holy can you prevent continued removals of tags without blocking? Valrith21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HI Valrith: Administrators on WP:AIV are charged with enforcing Wikipedia's blocking policy, which, in its second sentence, says: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. So, a block is preventative when we see an ongoing pattern of damaging vandalism that is likely to continue and do damage to the wiki. In a case like that, I would block in order to protect the wiki from further harm. In the case that you're dealing with - the removal of maintenance tags - the wiki is actually not in grave danger, although it's terribly annoying, I know. We have a number of other methods available to calm things down - dispute resolution and request for page protection come to mind immediately. Instead, what I'll do in this case is to leave a message on the user's talk page asking them to discuss changes. Perhaps seeing it come from me will make a difference. If not, we can explore other options. Sorry this is frustrating for you. - Philippe | Talk21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to discuss the issue with Valrith, but he/she did not give any indication to reasons for posting the comments about reliable sources. I created the article and the sources listed are very reliable and verifiable. Valrith so far is the only editor to make a claim otherwise. I am willing and encouraging of peer/administrator review of my sources and an objective decision made, not one based solely on one reader's spurious judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwpoe (talk • contribs)
I think the concern in this case is that all the references appear to be from either the author or her publisher. In such a case, there's danger that we could be crossing out of our NPOV. Is it possible to find additional sources that could be added? Is there critical review of Jean's work that could be cited? - Philippe | Talk21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little written about Thesman, which is why I limited the article so drastically, and it makes no extraordinary claims about her or her life. Surely the fact that she has won some awards and her current home as recorded by major publishers can't be worthy of objection. I suppose the individual awards can be tracked down, but that seems capricious in that I haven't seen other authors require that level of sourcing.--Alwpoe21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not yet on Wikibreak, you're up as late as I am, and you're blocking the vandals I was about to block. Hmpf. -- Merope06:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I needed SOMETHING to do while I was waiting for the laundry! I'm packing! Hey, can you review my block of User talk:Apocalidiot? He was vandalizing, I zapped him for 24, and then he started adjusting the block notice, etc, to make it look like I was actually unblocking him. And doing it badly! So, I took him to indef for vandal-only account. Now he's whining. I don't mind if you reduce it if you think it should be, but someone other than I ought to review the block probably. - Philippe | Talk06:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another insomniac beat me to it -- Can't sleep, clown will eat me indef-blocked and protected the page. Seems reasonable. -- Merope06:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this seemed like a fairly clear assertion of N to me, whether or not it would have held up at AfD, and as one admin to another, you might want to consider whether it should have been deleted. I suggest you might want to look at the talk page of the editor who listed it for deletion. There seem to be well-justified complaints of POINT, & I would be very cautious with any of his nominations. DGG (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment and sugestion. I looked at it again after receiving your comment: I'm not sure I see an assertion of notability as required by WP:N - specifically, for politicians, Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures. The way I read the article she doesn't hold office, she holds the candidacy for office, through a run-off election. As you know, we don't typically list every candidate for office. In any case, I'm headed out of the country in about 10 minutes, so you're welcome to revert and undelete if you feel strongly about it. - Philippe | Talk13:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this user blocked with the only reason being his name, which can be changed. He made two good faith edits before the block, which he wasn't warned about beforehand. This is a serious case of biting newcomers. I urge you to unblock him with an apology and ask him to change his name - Pheonix(talk)19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pheonix15, and thanks for asking... the user's name is in violation of WP:U, because it promotes a commercial enterprise, Engine Room Recordings. Because, in particular, this user was editing articles ABOUT that commercial enterprise, there's very real danger of this being either a role account engaged in promotional activity, or being a general promotional account, we generally block those, while at the same time leaving instructions for how to change the name. If this user changes their name, they can have their contributions follow them to the new name. I might clarify, also, that this one came in through Usernames for Administrator Attention. - Philippe | Talk19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to your protection (and I'm certainly not going to undo it), but I'm not sure why it's needed. Both IPs are blocked for 24 hours, and there was no activity on the page from August 10 until now. I think it may be worth shortening the protection to a week, but that's my opinion, as month seems a bit too long to me. I'll let you decide. Acalamari23:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked at the blocks - but since they're 24 hour blocks, I expect they'll be back. It seems to me that if we just sprotect the page, we don't really have to worry about the blocks... they'll be forced to register or leave it alone. If it were full protect, it's another thing - but sprotect is minimal damage in my mind. I'll drop the sprotect time back, though, you're probably right about that. - Philippe | Talk00:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ther; you just username blocked this editor. As his name is not only offensive in itself, but clearly derives from the name of a well-respected wiki admin, did you consider applying a hardblock? Just a thought - your call. --Anthony.bradbury"talk"22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought of it, but wasn't 100% sure the case was strong enough. Given that you thought the same thing, I'm going to modify to that. Thanks... I've never actually hardblocked on a username, and wasn't sure what the criteria were and didn't want to go overboard. - Philippe | Talk22:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting the article; I'm not sure if we'll have reached consensus by a week, but I will inform you if we need more protection. Thanks again! Neranei(talk)01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - that guy was on my watchlist, and when I saw people showing up to scold him on his talk, I took a look at it. Thanks for your help! - Philippe | Talk04:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that timed blocks are appropriate for this user. He is a vandalism-only account. Every one of his edits are either:
Copy-and-paste: He copies the text from similarly named articles (or in one case, Encyclopedia Britannica) over the top of, or in the middle of existing articles. These cannot be simple misunderstandings. He took one of the "Marist Brothers" school pages, and pasted it over every other Marist Brothers article he could find internationally; or
Signatures: He signs his name in the middle of articles, and sometimes changes his name in the signature to "MR X HACKER".
He has been a bit of a nuisance, hasn't he? Let me do a more detailed look at his contributions and see if there's any reason to look at him as a good faith editor. If not, I'll consider an indef block (though, to be truthful, I hate them... but I know there are always cases where they make sense). - Philippe | Talk04:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I normally don't like seeing them applied either, but I think some vandals pride themselves on seeing how long they can test our patience. Indef blocks seem less fun than a collection of n-day blocks. Your call. MarkChovain04:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You made a good case, and in his entire contribs, I don't see anything that allows me to AGF here. He's indef blocked. Thanks for pointing it out. - Philippe | Talk04:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NP: Thanks for looking into it. I think he's got socks, too:
Will do. I can't find anything in a quick look, but will spend time tonight working out how he finds his targets (they're all Islam-related, but I don't yet know how he found them). MarkChovain05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that page protection was requested by the cabal mediator. The mediation cabal is not an official process and the mediator has no special rights to call for protection. This mediator is new to WP with about two months of significant editing -- not the experience level to take this case. This page got a bit out of control yesterday and protection was probably warranted; however, unprotecting should be affected as soon as things calm down, and not at the behest of unacceptable mediator. We already have several experienced admins on watch here. --Kevin Murray12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I, of course, agree with you that medcab is not an official process, I independently verified that several of the active editors there were calling for page protection. Because of that, and the rather high level of activity there, I still believe that I made the right choice with protection. However, at the time, I consciously set the page protection for a relatively short period of time (only about a week). I am aware that there are several admins who are in that process, but one of them was one of the people calling for page protection and (wisely) suggesting that he should not be the one to handle the protection.
Thank you for your interest, and for your suggestion - for now, I'm going to leave the protection as is, but other admins may choose to disagree with me. - Philippe | Talk14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I think that your choice was wise except where your edit summary inflates the status of an yet unaccepted informal mediation. I realize that admins must freeze the page as they find it, at least initially; however, I think that we lost some significant compromise sections especially the photo gallery which has been no easy task to bring to neutral and was removed by a transient editor shortly before protection. --Kevin Murray14:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that admins would generally protect the page in whatever version they initially find it (the exception, of course, being if there were substantial vandalism to the page); one thing you might consider in this case is to use the talk page to determine if there is consensus to bring back things that were removed by the "transient editors" - if so, you could theoretically use the {{editprotected}} template to that they be put back in the article. You'll want to be sure that the discussion showing consensus is clearly available to the admin who would answer, but I can see where that could be used to get things back for you. - Philippe | Talk15:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not violate the 3RR rule as I'm editing constructively. You cannot just divide the editors into two camps and count all the edits by some editor as reversions. If you look at all my edits today on the Hamas and Hezbollah page you can clearly see that I've been busy trying to find a reasonable solution to the issues raised. Count Iblis20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct, and if you check your talk page, you'll see that I had already removed the 3RR warning. It was issued in error, I clicked the wrong name. My apologies. - Philippe | Talk20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B.t.w., my experience with the 3RR rule is that it is often used as a tactical weapon in edit wars. Only in case of disruptive newcomers and vandals is this rule any good. You now often see established editors just reverting without discussing much, just giving "rv" as edit summary, because they are "entitled to 3 reversions". This is not really true according to the 3RR page, but it does reflect the practice. Count Iblis21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, I did not get to read the entry for my company Fair Trade Sports yet (do you still have it?), but please allow me to disagree with you that our new company is not remarkable. Here are three support points:
First, we are the first (and only) sports gear company in the US making certified child labor-free sports balls (Fairtrade Labeling Organization).
Second, we are the first (and only) sports gear company in the US making certified eco-friendly sports balls (Forest Stewardship Council).
Third, we are the first (and only) sports gear company in the US giving away all our after-tax profits to children's charities - same as the Newman's Own brand (popcorn, salad dressing, etc).
I'm not sure how the GoLite company can have an entry with nothing unique about them (although they do make great stuff - I love my gear from them), while our entry is deleted?
Hi ScottJames - good question. First, I hope you'll indulge me in thanking you for your commitment to fair trade and social justice. On a personal note, I appreciate it. I'll leave a copy of this on your talk page as well, just to be sure that you get it. To answer your question more specifically, though, Wikipedia has some fairly well established standards for notability, and in the incarnation I saw, the article about your company didn't seem to meet them. I'll be happy to restore the article and place it in your userspace somewhere (we can work out where) so that you can take some time to pull the article up to standard, and then I'll help you move it to the main wiki, if you can demonstrate that you've met those standards. Our standards say:
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations1 except for the following:
Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.2 Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.
Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.
So, at this point, I just need to know if you'd like me to undelete the previous article to your userspace so that you can work on it or not. I wish you the best, and again thank you for your commitment to social justice. - Philippe | Talk22:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, great insight. Thank you. And thanks for the encouraging words.
Yes, I believe we can pass that criteria. A few examples:
~ Green Options interview: [7] ~ UtneCast podcast - The Future of Fair Trade: [8] ~ LA Daily News article - An Inhuman Price: [http://www.fairtradesports.com/wp-content/images/pdfs/TomHoffarthArticle.pdf
] ~ Plenty Magazine - Bend It Like Oxfam [9] ~ Outside Magazine - Walk the Walk: More Green Living Tips [10] ~ Sierra Club [11] ~ Coop America interview [12] ~ Grist - Have a (Sustainable) Ball: [13]
Please undelete the content at your convenience and place where you think is most appropriate. I can then add these media references with your approval.
--ScottJames00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're off to a good start - it reads like an advertisement though. What you'll need to do is to use those secondary sources to write something about the company - what ARE the sources saying? Tell us about the company in a way that's encyclopedic, not advertising. If it goes live like it is now, I guarantee it'll get killed as an advertisement. It needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and as a critical, balanced article. You might check out what has been written about other companies and use that as a starting point. - Philippe | Talk04:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance on this, Philippe. Using Newman's Own as my guide (since we use it as our business model guide, too), I've made another draft. I know you are quite busy. When you have a chance this week, your constructive criticism would be appreciated.
Phillipe, I am inquiring as to why my second entry for JJBuckley.com was deemed unacceptable? Can you please specify what the submission lacked/contained? Their latest move to become the first carbon-neutral distributor/retailer is indeed remarkable, enough so that the effort has been covered by Food & Wine, The Seattle Times, Wine Spectator, and a number of eco-focused publications. Any help you can provide so that I may re-shape it to fit the guidelines would be more than appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bellman123 (talk • contribs).
You know, I'm embarrassed to say that I'm not sure WHAT I was thinking when I deleted that one. It's a little weak on references (we normally encourage multiple references, see above) but that in and of itself isn't enough to get it speedy deleted. I've restored it, with my apologies. It's probably not safe from AFD yet - get some more cites in it - but it really shouldn't have been speedied. Again, my apologies. - Philippe | Talk00:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of that guy until tonight, when he modified an article I was watching. I soon saw a pattern of him trying to downplay or diminish anything that had to do with death or illness from smoking. I don't know if that's been a recurring theme, or just something he latched onto for vandalism or rabble-rousing purposes... but thank you for doing it. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No probl... I did reduce the length of his block, but it's still a substantial one, and he's appealing it. I stand by it though, he's got a block history that's pretty long. He called tonight a minor error or some such... <grin> - Philippe | Talk02:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When someone engages in a continuous loop of vandalizing and getting blocked, it makes you wonder. I've been blocked twice in my 2 1/2 years here. Both times it was deserved, and I sat it out quietly. One thing I know for sure: no one vandalizes like that "by mistake". Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he'll see the error of his ways and recant... I doubt it though. The next one will be indef. Some vandals grow up, others lose interest, and others get indef'd. I'm taking bets on this one. - Philippe | Talk03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't bothered to look back at his history, but I'm guessing this smoking issue is just something he latched onto for the purpose of causing trouble. That's typical troll behavior. It doesn't matter what the issue is, it's the "game" that matters to those users. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to reconsider that block shortening. He's just attempted to vandalize his own talk page (seems like blocked users can't create working redirects?) and left an uncivil edit summary with a personal attack [14]. The Parsnip!03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. I'm gonna leave it as is, though. He's allowed to be mad at me, I blocked him. His SPELLING (of "yourselfs" [sic]) is what's really offensive though! I'm just gonna keep an eye on him once the block expires and if he crosses the line I'll make it indef. - Philippe | Talk03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, I understand that I violated the 3RR. However, why did you not block Eric? I'm sure you don't have the time to wander through the history of these things, but will have seen that I added accurate and pertinent information and he unilaterally reverted. I'm sure it's the same old story but if the 3RR is applicable to my addition, it must certainly be applicable to Eric's reversions. Eric's edits did not fall under the Exceptions in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. It appears to me that Eric has taken an Wikipedia:Ownership of articles posture that isn't helpful. Particularly, in view of the fact that my addition of Executive Producers is exactly what the example in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines provides for. If this persists, I will ask for mediation since Eric's position seems a little arbitrary and capricious.
I was looking at my watchlist, and I saw this: Kingda Ka; 16:51 . . (-778) . . User:Coaster1983 (Talk | contribs) (Removed Kingda Ka's shoulder restraints vs. Top Thrill Dragster's lap-bar restraints section as it does not have a non-Wikipedia source).
Looking through the article, I saw that once again, 71.172.225.72 is making un-called for edits to these articles, and I feel it needs to be stopped. --Mooshykris22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lesnar article was screwed up. Looks like you copied directly from the talk page as opposed to copying the source code. Mshake303:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, you recently semiprotected Lorna Fitzgerald per my request. However an account user has began to reinclude the information not only to this article, but also to the actor's character, Abi Branning. I had originally thought that it was only an anonymous ip, but user Ln of x seems to have acquired an account merely to reinclude this POV statement. He/she has ignored requests to stop. I dont want to get into an edit war, can you suggest what I can do from here? Regards Gungadin♦19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my Tejas Club page, saying it was blatant copyright infringement. I'm the web master for the official site - tell me what I need to fix to get it back up and running.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amb975 (talk • contribs) 20:13, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
I edit conflicted you with on blocking this guy but you got there first it seems. Don't you think he's had enough chances? I was going for an indefblock - seemed like a pretty obvious case for one. Can't see what will change in a week given that his last block seems to have had little impact. WjBscribe04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I guess because I'm still fairly new I tend to be a little conservative with the blocks. He's had one before, and I hate to go straight from 31 hours to indef, but I won't object if you want to adjust the block. I appreciate you talking to me about it first though. :-) - Philippe | Talk04:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. I made the previous block indef and 6 month blocked the IP. (I don't want to indef block an IP. Makes me nervous. Wouldn't be prudent. - Philippe | Talk05:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - Best not to block the anons for more than a short time. Even in this case (where it's obviously a static IP), you never know if/when the user changes ISP, and the next user to get the IP will clearly be put off if they're indef blocked. MarkChovain06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the protection notice is driven by a template in the page, {{pp-semi-vandalism|small=yes}} - I've changed it to that template, which just gives the padlock. If you want the protection notice to appear instead, change that template to {{sprotect}}. - Philippe | Talk22:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm used to seeing the padlock as an indication that a page's protected status is at least indefinite. Thanks for responding to my posting on the RFPP so quickly, you've improved the quality of Wikilife for the regular patrollers of the page that much better. BrokenSphereMsg me22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe please can you help me protect the above page from msjapan? There is lots to discuss about sockpuppets and other stuff but msjapan keeps deleting an article which does have merit and the references are genuine not as msjapan says.--Huwjarce14:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look to the talk page? I am trying to invite people to respect the old version of the article. Then to discuss changes. I have been involved in the editing war to try to arrive to a compromise. Sorry for all this trouble. Egypt and race is a sensitive matter. I hope that things will come back to normal. Thanks for the remarks.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka22:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message about sprotecting Body nullification and offering to sprotect my user page as well. At this point, I think I will leave it be, the IP only edited it once and hopefully will disappear now. Perhaps I have now reached some sort of Wikipedia milestone by having my user page vandalized ;) Risker04:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My account, User:Ln of x, has been blocked for 72 hrs for some bizarre reason. All the edits I made were perfectly valid yet my user account was (and still is) blocked. WTF ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.124.97 (talk) 14:52, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
That account was blocked because you persisted in putting in unencyclopedia and unreferenced edits such as "Abi, much like the very talented actress Lorna Fitzgerald that plays her, is often described as adorable. She is incredibly cute and cuddly. You just want to put your arms around her and cuddle her. She is sparkly and innocent, kind and caring, confident and adorable."
I don't really understand why this sockpuppet thing is taken so seriously. I'm only signing in with this username now (I don't use this account for 'sockpuppetting') because it's the only way I can contact you. I actually made the edit to Lewis carol this morning and I assumed it would be ok to edit it as User 84.69.124.97 since it allowed me to edit the article. I didn't realise you can't edit as an anon user whilst your account is blocked.
You seemed to take it well seriously, you've blocked my IP address for 6 months !!
Don't you think that's a bit harsh ? I'm sorry if I offended you that much but 6 months is ridiculous. Please could you reduce it. (I'm thinkin' to 1 or 2 days). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blink182rulesrock (talk • contribs) 17:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
What would make you think that it's okay to edit while you're blocked? You know you're blocked... you can't log in... so you go and put the same edits to another page as the ones that got you blocked? Evading a block is a big deal. On the block message that I left on your talk page is instructions for how to appeal a block. That's your only option. And by the way, if I find that you've made edits with this account, I'll block it too. - Philippe | Talk17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a surprise it was for me to see that when you logged in with this account you left the same type of messages that got you blocked on the last two. I'm surprised! Shocked! Horrified! OK, now I'm a little over the top. I've blocked this sock of yours as well. - Philippe | Talk17:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
As i understood there was an article on Alexander Kostarev that you deleted. I belive thats importent to have an article about him on Wikipedia because in the Russian Prog scene his considered to be one of the most importent figures. I didnt see the article when it was here, and if you could, please leave a copy of the article on my talk page and i would see if it could be improved. M.V.E.i.17:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll try to find more links and expand the article. I case it workd out i will upload it here first. In case it won't, i will let you know anyway. M.V.E.i.18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the new article here. As you can see, i wrote a real biography and added links. I also puted the article in the categories that fit here. If you have no problems with it, i will uload it after i hear your opinion. M.V.E.i.20:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ideally like to see a statement that supports notability: awards, top selling records, something like that... as it is, I can't guarantee that it'll get past an AfD, but it's a lot better than it was! I certainly wouldn't speedy it now. - Philippe | Talk20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modern progressive rock isn't selling much, it's not mainstream, it's almost"underground" (try to tell me a name of a known Progressive rock band that started inthe 2000s and not in the 70s or 90s?). But he appeared in the InProg festival three times, which is the main progressive rock festival in Russia. Once you become a cult figure in the Russian prog scene, only then you'r invited there. If you would know Russian you could read here his name as one of the most importent figures of Russian progressive & art rock. M.V.E.i.21:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is WP:MUSIC - we need to establish his notability in a method that would be accepted by that guideline, so... you need to somehow prove that he meets one of the criteria on that page. - Philippe | Talk21:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok lets see. I judge by the Criteria for composers and lyricists on the Others. By the first it fits "Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria", because he was the ine who practically started the Zappa thing in the USSR. The whole Prog scene in Russia is influenced by him. He appears in the big festival as i said he is noted as one of the most importent prog & art scene in the second link i gave you. He also fits "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above". again, in the Russian link i gave you it's written: позже сотрудничал с С. Курехиным, С. Летовым, оркестром театра «Ромэн». Which meanse he worked with a theatre Romen, a known one, and with Yegor Letov. In the "Others" he fits "Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre". The Russian link i gave you and other links i gave their state about him being one of the most importent in Russian prog scene and that he was of those who started it back in the 70s. And he fits "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". I gave their links fro, different Prog sites, including Russian, who praise him. M.V.E.i.21:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you're satisfied that the article meets those requirements (and clearly spells that out in the article) then move it out to mainspace and good luck! :-) - Philippe | Talk21:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I'm glad someone caught that. Bad enough to not be plural, but spelled wrong! I have got to get more sleep before fixing redirects. - Philippe | Talk19:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
I created a new article about another band, Disen Gage. I would like to hear your opinion about it, if theres anything i could improve here. Thank you (you can answer here on your talk page i will re-visit it). M.V.E.i.15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be thrilled to look at it, but can't right this very moment (this was a quick on and off trip) but be patient with me, and I'll look at it - probably later tonight. - Philippe | Talk19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, not in a hurry. I will go to sleep now so take your time, i'll be here again tomorrow in the evening and i will see here what you write. Thanks. M.V.E.i.19:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A block-conflict again. I've extended this account's block to indefinite. It's a sole purpose attack/trolling account and I see no basis for the accusations being made. Given the pages it edited it obviously isn't a newbie so I don't think biting is a concern. Given that I see no chance of there editing behaviour improving in the future, I think an indefblock is appropriate. Hope you don't mind too much... WjBscribe03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that both of our user pages have been vandalized by the same really bad prose (I've reverted yours too), it seems my anonymous IP "friend" has extended his desire to share his lack of literary talent with both of us now. I think I would like to take you up on your offer to sprotect my user page, when you have a chance. Thanks. Risker02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems i was blocked under the above user name beacuse it was a product name. I choose it because i use it for other forum. If possible would like to change it to westendboy. I would be grateful if you would help me. unblock temporary so i can apply for the changes.. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.130.130 (talk) 12:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
The block of Nokian70 for being like a product name is just silly. You'd better block me for being the name of a character in the LOTR series. If you want more accounts to block on such grounds, let me know...I'll give you hundreds. Unblock Nokian70. --Durin13:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like ^demon already handled an unblock. I'll tell you, I don't think I was off base on this block, but evidently there are a few people who do. My feeling is that just as I'd block someone whose name was Lexus300E as a promotional username, I should do the same with Nokian70. In both cases, they promote not just a product but the company making the product. In any case, it's over, and ^demon has unblocked and told the user they don't need to change their username, and I'm certainly not going to get into a wheelwar over it and potentially alienate a good user. - Philippe | Talk21:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's unbelievable how user : ln of x has been blocked from editing, just for making true and useful contributions. It just goes to show how sad you are, philippe, if that is how you get your kicks. By the way, learn to spell your name. For a boy, note ; PHILIP, not the gay effeminate version philippe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the ln (talk • contribs)
It's a pity that you feel it's necessary to run other people down to feel good about yourself. By the way, that sock is blocked too, now. - Philippe | Talk21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen this exact situation before, so I tagged it to see how another admin would handle it. You took care of it quickly and efficiently - well done!--Kubigula(talk)04:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing that, I hope it's not out of process to do what i did, reporting back and such. I doubt it is, but I'd like to be sure. ThuranX05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your notice regarding the protection on the 0845 number and 0870 number. Unfortunately, anonymous users still keep reverting my changes, but I realise that it needs significantly more vandalism before it can be protected.
The people making the changes never cite the reason for reverting my changes, but it seems to be because they don't like the idea of people being able to find the geographic "free" alternatives to their costly numbers. Is there any kind of info box I could put on those pages to prompt a debate or discussion by these people so we can decide whether or not the link can stay "officially"? Unfortunately, them being anonymous probably means they won't want to debate it, but it is worth a try.
<grin> Thanks! Yeah, I've been an admin for a month and a half or so. Plenty of time to make half the wiki mad at me. (The other half WOULD be mad, they just haven't come across any of my work yet!) I'm enjoying the pretty new buttons though. - Philippe | Talk19:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that any account that makes any edits to Abi Branning or Lorna Fitzgerald is automatically blocked ? It seems very strange. Why can't people edit these articles constructively just like any other article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avarules (talk • contribs) 12:53, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I can't see your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avarules (talk • contribs) 13:12, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I can. I congratulate FQ on being brave enough to risk certain blocking to make an edit. Unfortunately, she proved your premise incorrect. - Philippe | Talk19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You protected Prawn farm massacre on August 27, with protection set to expire on September 10. I would like to request early unprotection because, in the midst of about 20KB of discussion, there has been some progress. The dispute, which began with User:Iwazaki's addition of the NPOV tags, revolves around primarily three issues:
The third sentence of the lead paragraph. I have proposed rewording that sentence per WP:NPOV (see the bottom of the section titled "What is the primary source here?"), another user involved in the dispute (User:Watchdogb) has supported the proposed change, and Iwazaki has not objected.
The possibility that all sources rely on the UTHR. Iwazaki has stated that he strongly "strongly believe"s that all of the sources use information from the UTHR. Despite repeated inquiries, he has not suggested why he thinks that is the case and has offered no proof to support his contention. Moreover, it's not entirely clear why that's relevant. The UTHR is considered an "independent" and reliable source by mainstream sources such as the BBC and International Herald Tribune. If you would like more details on that discussion, please see the sections titled "UTHR" and "What is the primary source here?".
The neutrality/reliability of the Trawick (2007) source. This issue has been debated at great length (in the section titled "Trawick, Margaret"), but Iwazaki has yet to provide a tangible reason to question the reliability of a professor at New Zealand's largest university, especially since her source is used to support a statement of allegation and not a statement of fact.
Twenty-four hours ago, I expressed my intention to request unprotection in order to implement several changes arising from the discussion. User:Taprobanus has supported my motion and Iwazaki has not objected. So, I ask that you unprotect the page so that various changes can be made (including the addition of a link to the online version of one of the disputed sources). I do not feel that the extra 10-day delay will result in any progress beyond what's been already made.
Congratulations on your hard work toward consensus. I have unprotected the page so that you can make the changes. Thanks to you and your partners in this discussion for a good model of how this should work. - Philippe | Talk19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moon's still linked to from the mainpage - I'm not sure protection is that great an idea. Kinda spoils that "encyclopedia anyone can edit" things. For an article with a link off the mainpage, the vandalism isn't that bad and User:Laffy1992 has been indefblocked. Up to you, but you might want to reconsider... WjBscribe22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, things are just getting too weird for me. See the last discussion on the bottom of the page at Talk:Arabian horse. Seems that others now think that they should edit the article without a clue about what they are talking about. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this article on your watchlist for a little while, just until this current kafuffel passes. I may need reinforcements who are more neutral than I am able to be on this topic. Montanabw(talk)01:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note my latest edits to Abi branning and lorna fitzgerald. Let's see if I'm blocked now, shall we ? That will prove if my theory is correct or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.36.92 (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the difference is, you didn't get blocked for those edits. You got blocked for generally being a pest with multiple accounts. This game is getting tiresome.- Philippe | Talk19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This username should probably be blocked indef. Spooge is slang for semen/ejaculate. I reported to UAA after you blocked 24h at AIV, but I forgot that the bot removes the report regardless of why it was blocked. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs04:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The individual edit warring on the page has been blocked; discussion has continued on the talkpage. Protection might be withdrawn at this time; this page will see heavy traffic as a result of today's New York Times article, and it should be updated. Hornplease22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, there are some shocking errors about his legal background and what not that need to be remedied with a complete rewrite. I'm listing it on the Noticeboard for India-related articles the moment it's unprotected. Hornplease22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you'll be find as long as you use the editprotected template. Generally, if you have everything all set up so they can just copy/paste/go, it's easier. - Philippe | Talk06:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! This is a random delivery of the WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter, the "WikiOkie Reporter". You will not recieve this again unless you sign up.
September 2007 brings a new face to WikiProject Oklahoma: a newsletter. As in all of Wikipedia, the new WikiOkie Reporter (tenative name) is intended to be a collaborative effort among editors. Anyone can edit it: this month's newsletter is placed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma/newsletter/aug07, but next month's will be placed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma/newsletter/oct07, with the following month at /newsletter/nov07, and so on. While this month's article's were initially written by User:Okiefromokla, it is hoped other editors will be excited to contribute to articles, content, layout, and ideas. This is a completely new child of WikiProject Oklahoma, and it should reflect the collaborative work of everyone who's bored and has nothing to do for a few minutes. As such, anything can be discussed here: anything - layout, color scheme, pictures, content, etc.
The behind-the-scenes workings for the WikiOkie Reporter will be simple: anyone wishing to receive the newsletter in their talk page may place their name at sign-up list, but they are more than free to remove their name from the same list at any time. Anyone wishing to discuss ideas or anything at all related to the newsletter may look no further than here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oklahoma/newsletter/talk.
Several WikiProjects already have ongoing newsletters, including Wikipedia: WikiProject North Dakota, from which WikiProject Oklahoma's newsletter has been based. For the time being, Okiefromokla will assume distribution responsibilities for the newsletter, maintaining the template, and writing articles from scratch if other editors have not done so by the 1st of the month.
Promotions on the rise
For many Wikipedians, summer is a time to kick back, relax, and make an occasional minor edit to their favorite few pages. Not so in WikiProject Oklahoma. Between May 12 and September, editors have been busily working on Oklahoma, Tulsa, and Woody Guthrie, and all three have been promoted. Prior to May, there were only seven Featured or Good articles in WikiProject Oklahoma.
On May 12, Tulsa was promoted from B-class to FA class after a few months of extensive editing. Its primary editors were User:Nmajdan, User:SandyGeorgia, User:Okiefromokla, and a handful of others. On August 25, Oklahoma was promoted from B-class to FA class after a month-long blitz. User:Okiefromokla, User: SandyGeorgia, and several anonymous IPs contributed heavily to the article. On June 13, 2007, Woody Guthrie was promoted from B-Class to GA class after two failed attempts at promotion. User:Dannygutters, User:Gaff, User:Maenpong, and a handful of others contributed most to the article.
This month's task: Assess articles! Check out all these unassessed articles to help out!
The WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter is a work in progress so please share your ideas about how the newsletter can be improved. If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the sign-up list.
Thank you for showing your support for me in my recent RfA. Unfortunately, I was unable to earn the required consensus and did not succeed. I do hope to put in another request in a few months, once I have improved upon the concerns addressed by the rest of the participants. Your expressed trust in me will definitely help me reach that goal. Thank you again, and happy editing! Hersfold(t/a/c)01:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Message from Coordinator: It's been almost two months since the last newsletter came out, so there are a fair few people who haven't really been kept up with our project. I'd like to welcome all those who have joined and those who have returned, and strongly reccommend that you use the talkpage for any queries or problems you have. Happy editing!
Article News
The ongoing effort to create a comprehensive list of LGB people has begun to bear fruit - /A AND the /W-Z lists have been featured! Congratulations to Dev920 and SatyrTN who nominated them respectively. Please consider pitching in the the remaining lists to help us get them finished before the end of the year.
Project News
WP:LGBT now has an IRC channel! It is #LGBTProject on Freenode. Users without IRC or Xchat can use the java app at java.freenode.net to access the channel from their web browser. Hope to see you in there sometime!
David Shankbone has taken a LOT of photos. An idea has been mooted to create a page for listing people who are willing to take images in their area on request, please give your thoughts here.
Considerable discussion has recently been held on our coverage of same sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. You may be interested to read it.
The list of LGBT people to be sorted has now been reduced by over 30%. Please help us with it, all of us adding just one person a day would have a dramatic effect!
A gay cabal conspiracy ghost has been created to do with what you will. :)
Wooh, massive gay conspiracy...
Member News
Since the last newsletter was released, we have had more members been labelled inactive than who have signed up - please consider recruiting a few more people if you can, a WikiProject is only as good as its members. :)
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
And in the morning when I woke there was no Antonio
Just some money that he’d left for the memory of me
And oh my beautiful guitar, that’s what really broke my heart
Had been stolen by the two-faced low lothario Charlotte Hatherley xx Charlotte Hatherley05:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AnemoneProjectors is a queer. And yes, Lorna Fitzgerald is cute and cuddly; I want to cuddle her. BTW, I got a grade A* in GCSE English so don't mock my spelling.
Philippe, you spell your name like a gayman. You are a gaylord.
I'm growing rather attached to this little guy. I'm gonna be all fr0wney-faces when he grows up and goes off to college, or tech school, or goes off to be a hax0r or something. - Philippe | Talk20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all - I tend to be pretty broad about the use of user pages; it's a grey line b/w advertising and bios on there, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks watching for it, and for the speedy tag. - Philippe | Talk22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dealing with this user for a while, and I'm reaching the conclusion that his own English isn't quite at the standard that he believes it to be. A number of his editing practices can be classed as disruptive. BigHaz - Schreit mich an23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was beginning to suspect that. I took a quick look at his contribs and saw some things that concern me. I'll keep an eye on him as well. Thanks! - Philippe | Talk23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not unprotect a high-use, high-risk template like Template:Film, even if you know and trust a user who is simply trying to update the code. {{editprotected}} was designed for this exact reason. I spend a good deal of time fulfilling editprotected requests; I know it seems easier to just unprotect the template and let someone else do some work. However, Template:Film is transcluded over 33,000 times, and when multiple edits are made, big or small, all of the pages that transclude it have to be re-cached. I apologize if I'm telling you something you already know, however, I believe it merits stating. In addition to the burden on the pages, unprotection, even if just short-term, also leaves a template highly vulnerable to vandalism. Thanks. --MZMcBride00:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, the user has used the editprotected template multiple times, and expressed frustration that they kept needing to request admins do minor changes. I saw a very limited potential for damage in unprotecting it for a short time and saving admins from multiple requests for editprotected. - Philippe | Talk23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw that. I disagree with the block, but not enough to kick a fuss about it. Thanks for all the hard work you're doing. It is appreciated. - Philippe | Talk23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems that need to be addressed:
1) On the Naruto (character) page, it says that it's only been heavily implied that Minato Namikaze is Naruto's father, yet, he's listed as Naruto's father under "Relatives". As the article is locked, we need you to change it.
2) On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Konoha_ninja, SomeGuy (yes, that's his nick) is waging the same editing war against me, DESPITE being a part of the discussion on Naruto's talk page and knowing fully well what happened there. Could you at least talk to him? He wrote that he's of the opinion that heavily implying is underscoring the fact and as such, their blood ties are a fact (which it isn't, which is why a Wikipedia article cannot state it). ~FallenAngelII 11:03, 10 September 2007 (GMT+1)
If I am reverting vandalism and give someone the "final warning" do i need to post it here or do admins patrol users looking for final warnings? Ctjf8302:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the user continues to vandalize past the final warning, please do post it to WP:AIV, and admins will take a look at it. If they stop after the final warning, then your warning has done its job, and we can all skip merrily down the road. :-) - Philippe | Talk02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm asking you stuff...I was looking at this and looked at Joe McDermott (politician) and saw the reference that he is indeed an LGBT person, so I deleted his name from the unsourced section is that the proper thing to do, delete them after they are sourced? Ctjf8302:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied and pasted what i wrote on the talk page of Denticon. On the second deletion did you even look at that article or did you just automatically delete it just because. I thought I would help wiki but there is no time for improvements to me made try to "Quarantine" an article, or see if it is being edited at the very moment you delete it. Gdbanks04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as i was trying to make the original article less like an advertisement it was deleted. i left the advet and the hangon tags because the article still needs revision. i am not the original creator of this article. i guess i need to save each little stip in my editing to prevent it from getting deleted as i try to improve it. thanks Gdbanks 04:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of issues with that article: the first is that it's advertisement, but the second is that the company/software simply isn't notable, to my knowledge. I'll userfy the article though and move it to your userspace... I'll put it at User:Gdbanks/Denticon.
Thanks but like I said, I am not the Creator of this article. If you could userfy it to the original creator that would be good. I was just trying to make the article better not become owner of it. as far as being notable I do not know ether. Thanks Gdbanks04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For all your hard work at RFPP. Should I just take it off my watchlist, since you seem to answer every request anyway? :) ~ Riana ⁂04:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allie's on adminbreak now... it shows, I got to answer about 10 requests in a row the other day without edit-conflicting her :) ~ Riana ⁂04:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok I don't know if you can help me with that or not, but the page Etisalat Egypt was removed, they say it was considered as an ad, I am not sure , but I think it was not. and I think that the tag was added by one of the compatitors of Etisalat.
please I need to know how to retrieve that page again.
You recently removed the speedy deletion notice from 19 Part One: Boot Camp. The article wasn't up for speedy deletion in the first place. I was restoring a previously speedy deleted article, and was in the middle of taking the notice off myself, when you removed it. You were only seconds quicker. JIP | Talk05:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry 'bout that! Margaritas and admin stuff may not be the best mix! :-)
Moreschi full-protected the page due to edit warring which has expired, but didn't restore the semi-protection even though I asked about restoring it a few days ago. Is it possible for you to reactivate it or do I have to go through the RFPP again? Thanks. BrokenSphereMsg me14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest Philippe,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.
Thanks for your message. I have to leave the computer for a bit, so I appreciate it if you would do the unblocking and keep an eye on them for a while. I have no problem with giving them a second chance. By the way, it's always good to work with you on vandal fighting and AIV patrol. Academic Challenger00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THank you for your kind words. I'll do it and keep an eye on him. - Philippe | Talk 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC
If you see i was reverting a Vandal on the site, told him to bring it to talk as well as warned him 3 times. the vandalized edit is still up on the article and must be reverted! thank you for locking the pageUkrNole 48523:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Screamingtrees has vandalized our site continuously, please revert his edit and observe that i am not the one at fault just protecting the page as all other venues of resolving went without success, i ask for reinstatement of my editing privileges. UkrNole 48523:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, your editing privileges are not withdrawn - I certainly haven't blocked you. I have protected that page so that no one other than admins can edit it for two weeks. Use the time to figure out a compromise. By the way, for your information: edits made in good faith can never be considered vandalism. Unless you can prove malice, or bad faith, you are radically in violation of our assume good faith policy. The same goes for the other user, by the way. I hate edit wars. Please find another way to resolve this - the page protection is intended to force you folks to go to discussion about it. :-) - Philippe | Talk01:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Philippe. I had earlier recommended that this name be taken off of WP:UAA and sent to WP:RFCN. Shortly after that happened, you blocked the name. I was hoping to get your input on why it is a username violation, because I did not feel it should be blocked. It refers to a religious figure, but in an expression of faith, rather than a distasteful way, as described by the policy. Thanks for your input. LeeboT/C01:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leebo, and thanks for asking. I didn't see that you had sent it to RFCN, or I certainly wouldn't have issued a block. I got that one in an email from someone. As for why: I thought about this one long and hard, particularly as regarding any expression of faith: if it had been "JesusIsMyLord", then I'd have probably have been okay with it - but I believe that seeing posts signed as "MyLordJesus" would be potentially disruptive. I'm willing to have you review the block and lift it, I don't feel that strongly about it. Thanks again for asking my thinking. - Philippe | Talk01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt reply. I respect your judgment and am not seeking to lift the block. I was away from the computer and was not present when the block took place, so I wanted to discuss it. I'm satisfied with that. Thanks again. LeeboT/C01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, dear Philippe - scroll up my talk page, and see Maxim's message, and his talk page. Just a typical case of two admins stepping on each others' toes, that's all ;) Love lots, Phaedriel - 01:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Philippe, for the second time I requested blocking the IP of the person creating admin-bashing usernames[15], but alas I see from the block log that they're back. Is it worth it to file another RFCU to block the IP again? If so I will gladly start another request. ~Eliz81(C)06:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd be fine to just keeping adding them to the same RFCU, and to report the name to WP:UAA. Thanks, those are some pretty ugly ones, aren't they? - Philippe | Talk15:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I was thinking about leaving you a message yesterday, and got offline before I did it. Where the hell have you been? Thanks for takin' care of that speedy for me. - Philippe | Talk19:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you're the real queen. :) Real life stuff just caught up with me, I guess. I moved in with my boyfriend (so I no longer leave myself logged in at home) and work just got crazy busy for a while. But life is good and I'm now squishing vandals and it feels okay. I just wish I'd stop getting error messages. Work, Wikipedia, work! -- Merope19:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you're experiencing is... uhm... software problem? Oh wait! Server problem! Is there any way I can blame it on anything other than the effect of red-bull and vodka on a tired sysop? I'm afraid I'm going to have to accept responsibility for a mistake there. I've fixed it. :-) Thanks for letting me know, sorry about the inconvenience. - Philippe | Talk22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no inconvenience really! Thanks for the semi. It possibly isn't even needed, but as it's the half of the main bone of apparent contention at the AfD... well, it seemed like a good idea? Thanks for helping! • Lawrence Cohen22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently added information to Dicentra formosa I'm not exactly entirely sure how to add the references. If you could do it for me and/or show me how to, that would be greatly appreciated. The references are listed in said article's talk page. Thank you Riffsofcobain03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to block User:71.33.162.242 from editing Roller Coaster articles? It's become tedious to undo all of the annoying (and many bordering vandalism) edits he/she makes.
At the least, would it be possible to protect all of the Six Flags Great Adventure roller coaster articles?
After a review of the user's contributions, I believe they're acting in good faith - as such, they don't meet the definition of vandalism. I'm sorry, but I'm not able to issue a block or protect the page under those circumstances. If you have evidence of bad faith, I can certainly look at it. - Philippe | Talk21:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this. I was trying the twinkle protection feature but obviously I had bugged up one part of the process and accidentally full protected the article. I automated tools are helpful but as you see getting too used to them can be a curse...that's the last time I protect anything with Twinkle. The old school way works just fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, no harm done. I use Twinkle for a lot, but I've had problems with the protection feature too. I still do protection the Old Skool way. :-) - Philippe | Talk04:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the protection on these pages. I previously posted a RFC for each article but I'm not sure I did it correctly. The process recently changed and I don't see the bot picking up the changes. Can you check the bottom of Talk:Rocketboom and Talk:Andrew Baron when you have a moment? Cleanr06:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you didn't notice, but Talk:Damon lomax is a talk page for an article which no longer exists. Could you reconsider your speedy decline on this one?
You're absolutely right. I'm not sure what I was thinking... probably thought it was a User talk instead of an article talk. Sorry about that. Looks like nawlins got it though. - Philippe | Talk22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man, check up on whether something has become "notable" or not before jumping in a deleting something, thinking it makes you a hero to the Wiki-dictators. Brophy's become noteable, whether you like it or not. His jersey was retired and was given awards... which makes him noteable, even by Wikipedia's narrow-minded definition. Fix what you ruined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradn87 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first things first... I place a very high premium on civility, and your talk of wiki-dictators and fixing what is ruined is certainly not welcome. Wanna try again, being pleasant this time? Second - I'm going to need to know what article you're talking about. Given that I delete a couple hundred a day some days, it'll be helpful if you'll narrow it down for me. At that point, I'm certainly happy to discuss my decision process with you. In general, if you're trying to recreate something that's been deleted previously, though, the best way is WP:DRV, and make your arguments there. - Philippe | Talk22:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I found the article you're referring to, and stand by my deletion. There was an AFD on this about two weeks ago. That should go to DRV if you believe there's reason to override the valid AFD. - Philippe | Talk22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please undelete the Shep of Fort Benton, Montana article (in my user space if you wish)? Although I was not the original author, there was meaningful content in there, enough to justify a stub tag. There are plenty of hits on Google supporting notability and I will try to add more content. Thank you. --NeilN03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which closed successfully with unanimous support. I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and vote and I can't wait to learn the new tools and further immerse myself into Wikipedia! Please don't hesitate to point out any errors I make so I can prevent them from occurring again. I'm always here to help, so if you ever need anything, just let me know. Also, thanks to Wizardman for nominating me and for guiding many other editors to become admins. Again, thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams202006:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp16:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like it got deleted G11, which I don't think it was... but a G12 would have worked nicely. Good call. Thanks for letting me know. :) - Philippe | Talk21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe, just had a question regarding the deletion log for the article Bemanistyle. I'm not here to contest the deletion, however since the history of the article is gone for normal users, I'm curious about the reason for the original deletion (since there were three deletions done within the period of a day, and I can only find the nomination/rationale for one--the very final one, I believe). If you don't mind letting me know, I'd appreciate it. There's some related Drama going on with AfD for some other fringe-related articles, so I'm not sure if it's just someone trying to make a POINT or not. Specifically, a user is going around nominating other articles for deletion just because his own article was deleted. Granted, that doesn't mean that the article I'm inquiring about should be revived, but it might be something that should be addressed separately. If you want the related AfD, please see StepMania and DDR Freak.
Sure, Doug: I did the initial speedy delete on it, and it looks like a couple other folks agreed with me. Basically, when I got it, the article didn't give any assertion of notability for the website: it looks like every other one of the thousands of forum websites on the internet. There were no references, and the only links were self-referential. Based on that, I believe that the article failed Criteria A7-web. - Philippe | Talk14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I've got no reason to argue with you there, despite however much I may like the website (and my own involvement with said site). Honestly, it'd be nice if it were more than just a forum, but I don't think I could prove otherwise (nor do I have any reason to expend a ton of energy doing so). Changing reality takes too much effort, I think. :P In any case, thanks once again, and take care! dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The Bowden page has been editprotected for a week or more now. There's been discussion on the talk page leading to a kind of consensus, which we're ready to implement. Also, the analogous quarrel on the Joe Paterno page has completely died down by now, so I'm thinking the Bowden page will be more stable as well. So as the admin who protected it in the first place, would you be willing to let it loose? Thanks, Joel Jbening22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and congratulations to you on coming to consensus there. Looks like you folks are off to a really solid start, and a good example of how dispute resolution is supposed to work! I hope you'll have no further problems, but if you do, please let me know and we'll see if we can keep it from getting out of hand. - Philippe | Talk22:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi mate (i presume you are the first port of call by a quick reading of Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? - forgive me if not), I’m sure your just working through some great backlog somewhere, and that normally you WP:AGF, but as you can see from this note on my talk page, a newbie (and somewhat troublesome editor it appears) had in good faith, requested i help split a page. thus i did all the moving, etc and create the new page. having seen in my time some quick AFD, PROD, etc i tired to do all the "right" things, and put a large note to that effect on the talk page, even when the first Speedy deletion notice. maybe in the backlog you overlooked it (i presume you deleted it from the deletion log - I’m no expert in this field) or I inavertedly didn't fulfil some crucial requirement.
Thus can you (or please point me in the right direction) restore the deleted page, so i, Otis66Driftwood/FOUR TILDES, or other editors can carry on improving that article.
Thanks in advance and my apologies if its not your fault!
Hi there - you're correct that I was working through a backlog of speedy delete candidates. In order to let you work on the article for a while and keep it safe from being deleted while you do, I've restored it for you at User:Pickle UK/Langston. You'll need to add some verification of notability, as I'm sure you know, using some reliable sources but once you've got that done, I'd be happy to take a quick look and make sure it's safe from Speedy Deletion and then move it back into the 'pedia for you. Just let me know when you think it's ready to go. Good luck! - Philippe | Talk22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers there mate, my forte in normally all thing transport, UK stuff and general improving of existing articles rather than creating new ones (esp WP:BIO ones) ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickle UK (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed an ip a few times during rcpatrol, so I stalked his contributions page until he vandalized after the final warning. Alas, since I do not have admin powers, I must submit for help to others. And you were the one. Just a thanks for doing this work. Xiong Chiamiov:: contact ::05:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Smuschiano215 was indefinitely blocked by user Fuhghettaboutit for reversion warring over Environmental engineering law and for a vandalism spree of other articles.
I've taken a slightly different approach to it: rather than chasing around IP addresses, which can easily be reset, I've chosen to semi-protect the article, so that IPs and new users can't edit it. That way the article stays safe, or the vandal is forced to create a username and wait for the account to age sufficiently to get past the semi-protection. I prefer to flush 'em out in the open, rather than handing out IP blocks, which can have significant collateral damage (particularly on dynamic IPs - we end up blocking legitimate users as well as the vandal). If the vandalism continues from registered accounts, let me know and I'll start isolating them and issuing blocks.
For future reference, you usually can get a faster response to something like this by posting it to WP:ANI, in case I'm not online. You're always welcome to let me know here as well. - Philippe | Talk15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72.221.100.24 is at it again. A short while ago, he blanked out about half of my user page ... which was subsequently reverted by DerHexer before I even saw the blanking out. For someone who has a law degree, 72.221.100.24 is acting like a child. I repeat my request that you block him indefinitely. Please help, - mbeychok21:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We never - never - indef block an IP address. There are significant collateral damage issues, particularly with dynamic IPs. I will, however, hit him with a good long block, right now. - Philippe | Talk01:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning for hard-blocking User:Youassassin. First of all, I don't see how the username violates the username policy at all, and it's certainly not so blatant that it requires an indefinite block without even a warning.
You called it a "vandal-only account", presumably to justify the hard-block, but in its contributions I see one edit to a sandbox and one edit that he self-reverted.
This indicates to me that you may have just blocked a good-faith newbie with an honest desire to learn about Wikipedia. Did you have any other reason that you didn't mention in the block summary? Blocking is not something to be done lightly. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "You Assassin" is fairly definitive, I think - it conveys a concept of violence, which certainly is a violation of the username policy. In addition to that, he added his name to an article (true, he self-reverted) and started an article about himself which was speedied. All of those together tended to push me towards "vandal". He didn't have a single contribution that wasn't an attempt at putting his name in the wiki somewhere. I'm willing to allow him to start a new account, if you think I'm violently off base, but I think the pattern is pretty clear. - Philippe | Talk21:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Youassassin" doesn't imply an intent to disrupt Wikipedia, doesn't "make harmonious editing impossible", and doesn't even come close to matching the other reasons on WP:IU, so I think you've just made a completely unjustified block. Users who experiment with Wikipedia, meanwhile, are always given second chances and multiple warnings before they are blocked, whereas you never gave Youassassin even one warning.
Please see the Talk:Race and ancient Egypt page. I'm trying to get the article improved while it's protected. I want to get all disputes solved while it's still protected so that they can be implemented once it's unprotected. The article is clearly in bad shape and needs a lot of work, however I noticed that you have participated in editing the article previously and thought you might want to involve yourself in the discussions. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)23:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation to participate. However, because I previously protected the page, and might do so again at some point, I'm choosing to recuse myself from this discussion. In addition, I have no particular expertise in this area. I'd be happy to be involved as an informal mediator, but I will not be drawn into this controversy. Thank you again for the invitation. I'm pleased to see notifications going out about discussion. - Philippe | Talk23:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In declining my speedy tag on this article, you commented (in the edit summary) that Grace Jones is notable. I agree; but I tagged the article as db-nocontext, not db-bio. The creator of this article created a number of similar articles with titles that just won't fly in addition to this one, all of which have been speedily deleted. He's now attempting to add the same information into the main Grace Jones article in a completely irregular fashion. Frankly, I don't care enough about Grace Jones to deal with all this; I was just doing a bit of desultory RC monitoring and noticed that the guy was cluelessly creating articles with titles that would never be searched for and that would better be combined in a new article on Jones's singles. I'd appreciate it if you'd review your decision to not delete this. Deor23:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deor, and thanks for your comments (and your RC monitoring!). I'll take a look at this one, and the creators' other articles and see if I can't work with him a bit to make him see the error of his ways. Then, perhaps we can take the opportunity to turn a potential author with some issues into one who understands the process. I should have seen that and done it automatically - thanks for bringing it to my attention. - Philippe | Talk00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This just goes to show everyone that you're a piece of shit admin, who I wouldn't trust with a potato gun. In fact, I not only question your intelligence but I also question your basic understanding of reality. Like I said here, there is no way you can stop me. However, I actually feel bad for the newbies that "actually" want to contribute constructively, given their environment. Anyways, with any luck Wikipedia will loose funding soon. Cheers! 70.247.252.11004:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started it with the intention of adding the capatains, which I now have started to do, but it now seems to be a cock-up. Can you please help? Archifile05:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be pleased to, however, I am just about to walk out the door. How about if I move the page out of the main encyclopedia and you work on it in your own userspace? Then, when it's ready, I'd be happy to move it back to the main encyclopedia if it meets our requirements? I'm going to move the page to User:Archifile/Rugby and you can work on editing it there. If you have particular questions, please feel free to leave them here for me and I'll get them when I get back home. - Philippe | Talk05:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This issue certainly got somewhat confused :). It turns out the user was trying to create a category for the captains - I've posted some steps on my talk page on how to remedy this which will hopefully clear it up. Cheers, Blair - Speak to me05:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed your speedy deletion of my Thomas Gleixner article. I don't consider this person insignificant. He's one of the 70 Linux kernel developers invited by Linus Torvalds for the yearly Kernel Summit meeting. Many of these 70 programmers already have wikipedia articles.
Alright, my article was a bit short. I have a lot more information about Thomas Gleixner. Actually, I just wanted to add some more when I noticed you deleted my article. I admit that it might have been better to write a longer article first and then publish it.
Anyway, I ask you to undo your deletion or allow me to recreate the article. It'll definitely become longer, will contain a photo of Thomas, and will be linked with more other articles.--Hjkoch13:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dear phillipe, i am JoeBonnano (not my real name), and i am new to wikipedia. i just posted some questions to roastytoast, who you may know of. stuff like, how do you create article, userpages, and find existing userpages on wikipedia (I always just type in the usename on google, but getting there directly from wiki would save me some time). also, i would like to know what the hell is an Admin, what does he do, and how can i be one, and do i want to be one at all? please, when you get a chance, get back to me on my talk page, cause i would really appreciate that. please try to get back to me on my talk paige. thanks, phillipe.
P.S- are you mexican, cause phillipe sounds kind of latino, or maybe Italian, cause I'm Italian, and i think phillipe is both italian & Spanish.
P.S.S- how do i make tables of contants for my pages and userpage, thats the biggest thing. i've used the tools to try to make articles with them, but it never works out well.
P.P.S.S- I just saw where you said to post comments at the bottom of the paige, but i don't really want to re-write this whole thing, Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeBonnano (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe - on your user talk page, there's a great introduction to Wikipedia that includes things like "how to edit a page", etc. I'd start by reading those. Admins are normal users who have access to a few extra tools (the rights to block a user from editing, to delete pages, etc.) - I wouldn't worry about whether you need to be an admin for a while. The standards right now require that you have several thousand edits before you have a realistic chance of being an admin, and frankly, most users don't need those tools. We're kind of the "janitors" of Wikipedia - we clean up some messes, but don't have any extra say in content disputes or editing. I'll copy this message to your talk page as well. (PS - I'm French Canadian, living in the midwest). - Philippe | Talk02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was silly that admin itercession was needed on the cougar page and a block had to be put in place. Thanks for the help though. It mainly came about because one editor refused to discuss his constants reverts of multiple other editors who would come along independently to fix the page's style and align it with consensus WP:MOS.
The editor finally discussed his edits, to no one elses satisfaction pretty much, and was outvoted 8-2. The result? He continues now to stubbornly edit war and revert, revert, revert. I came back and see that two other editors have tried to fix the page in the day since he's been outvoted and he's reverted them, I just made my own edit to do the same and probably will be reverted. What is done in edit war cases? I thought the vote would settle it. Thanks for any assistance! Beyazid03:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's so frustrating. I don't blame you for being irritated, I know I am also. If the user reverts more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, leave them a warning, and if they continue, report them to the appropriate noticeboard. If it comes down to it, I can semi-protect the page, which will block out anonymous users and prevent them from editing. It's a kind of harsh action to take, because it eliminates potentially positive contributions as well. You can also request help with dispute resolution, which may get the point across. If it comes to it, you can also open a request for comment about the user. Keep the faith - I know it's so frustrating. - Philippe | Talk03:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It is quite an experienced editor who knows well enough about 3RR and doesn't cross that line. Also a semi-protect isn't applicable. But the other options might be. Beyazid05:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're quite right - I don't have enough fingers and toes to do that kind of math. I've altered your block message to reflect reality. - Philippe | Talk02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete my Jeff sutton article, i was not done it nor did you inform me of your deleation. Next time before you delete a artile that i made please at least have a deletion dicussion made or inform me. User: Icerainbow--Icerainbow02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well i will find 3 sources for you. I will put there here so you can see them. Please read them right away and give me a response if you think they are good.User:Icerainbow
I'll give you one of them - the imdb.com one. The other three, I'm sorry, don't meet our reliable sources requirements. Can you come up with critical reviews? Anything to establish notability? - Philippe | Talk01:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to refer you back to WP:RS - we're not just looking for website mentions, but for reliable critical writing. So, a teenidols website usually isn't going to qualify. - Philippe | Talk18:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he means to say "no one is insignificant". I looked it up and found a lot of sites. I will countinue to try to find 3 sites. User: Icerainbow --Icerainbow19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a propasal. Why don't you and i and Koolo work toghther to find more info on jeff sutton. If you like this idea, tell me here or on my talk page and inform Koolo.--Icerainbow 02:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)I will help if you want.--Koolo15:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am nyuwagner and you marked two pages of mine for speedy deletion last week. I am new to wikipedia and wanted to talk to you before re-creating. I created two entries, one for the Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems and one for Institute for Education and Social Policy. Both are educational entities that perform research and are endowed through New York University. I was going to expand on the stubs later, but for now just wanted people to know that these institutions disperse funds on behalf of NYU and what their research focus is. Would a more detailed article help? There is no doubt as to the significance of unique research entities in my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyuwagner (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abi Branning is cuddly. Adorable Lorna Fitzgerald, the enormously talented girl that plays darling Abi, is sparkly. Magical Abi/Lorna (more or less interchangable) is EXTREMELY ADORABLE. Don't you just want to put your arms around her, philippe ? I'd like to curl up with Abi and adore her.
Ever heard of glass houses and stones phillipe ? I'd say that someone who is an administrator on wikipedia doesn't really have a leg to stand on when talking about the need to get a hobby. Actually, I have a great deal of hobbies. I'm very heaviliy involved in both attending and running of and various investment banking and finance soceities, I play football, tennis, and I'm into drama and literature, both reading and writing my own prose and poetry. Flying kites does suck though. I have a very active social life with many good friends, and yes, I am also VERY good at maths (but then again I'm good at every subject - 9A*s at GCSE, 5As at AS, 4 As at A2). Do you get linear algebra, philippe ? I do. Yes, I also happen to think that a little girl is a real sweetie and enjoy registering this opinion on wikipedia from time to time, I don't see why my mum would be so shocked at my wikipedia history, FisherQueen. Abi Branning, and her actress Lorna Fitzgerald are cute and magical, sparkly and as pure as gold. FTSE10015:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like seeing anon attacking anyone outside the confines of the Talk:Frida Kahlo page, both of you have done a great job, but he's not paying attention to any of us. Perhaps its time to block that troll. I would if I were an administrator. Modernist21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Modernist, and thanks for your comment. This one is kind of an ugly one - I can't believe anyone would stoop to attacking one of our most dedicated administrator over their age! I've issued a final warning to the anon, and if they keep it up, I will block them. Thanks for your patience in dealing with this person. - Philippe | Talk22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your revert. He was pointing out a valid discussion about the issue. Sure, I wasn't fond of his tone. I see no reason for you to have reverted that comment. At this point, I see no reason to block him either. I did issue a final warning. I haven't seen any attack language from him since. He's certainly using strong talk, but it's not attacking anymore - Philippe | Talk03:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing is, this is a wiki. He can't do anything that can't be undone. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to block him. :-) - Philippe | Talk03:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of glass houses and stones phillipe ? I'd say that someone who is an administrator on wikipedia doesn't really have a leg to stand on when talking about the need to get a hobby. Actually, I have a great deal of hobbies. I'm very heaviliy involved in both attending and running of and various investment banking and finance soceities, I play football, tennis, and I'm into drama and literature, both reading and writing my own prose and poetry. Flying kites does suck though. I have a very active social life with many good friends, and yes, I am also VERY good at maths (but then again I'm good at every subject - 9A*s at GCSE, 5As at AS, 4 As at A2). Do you get linear algebra, philippe ? I do. Yes, I also happen to think that a little girl is a real sweetie and enjoy registering this opinion on wikipedia from time to time, I don't see why my mum would be so shocked at my wikipedia history, FisherQueen. Abi Branning, and her actress Lorna Fitzgerald are cute and magical, sparkly and as pure as gold. FTSE10015:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree that you have a hobby - it's to come on here and troll. Frankly, it's fine with me that you feel it necessary to check in every once in a while - better that than not, because at least we know where you are. I think FisherQueen would agree with me that we appreciate the fact that you register your socks with us. Besides, I've grown rather fond of you. I'd miss you if you weren't around. I sure wish you'd lay off the creepy statements about the little girl, though. - Philippe | Talk16:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as vandals and trolls go, this one is harmless enough, though I am truly concerned that the creepy statements about cuddling little girls might be a sign of desires that are inappropriate and wrong, and would urge you to share your edits with your mother, so the two of you can decide whether therapy would be appropriate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to apologize for the comment I left about you on that RFCN. I withdrew it and announced my poor choice of words on there. 68.143.88.219:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and no hard feelings. Thanks for your hard work - sometimes it's hard to fight for an underdog, but it always needs to be done, and I admire you for doing it. - Philippe | Talk19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your deletion of List of United States radio markets, I wholeheartedly support your action. However, is there someway to temporarily restore and or send me a copy of the list? All I need is the template names for each market, as I'm in the process of attempting to clean them up. As there is now no central location that lists the names of the templates for each market (which I will probably utilize a category for), I have no way to start, short of guess and check, etc. Is there anyway you might be able to help me? Any help is much appreciated! JPG-GR20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you'll email me at philippe.wiki@gmail.com, I'll email you a copy of it. I'd prefer not to post it on wiki, because I just got rid of it for copyright infringement. :-) - Philippe | Talk21:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modest boost in assessed articles during September
WikiProject Oklahoma's massive list of unassessed articles got smaller over the month of September, as 45 articles were assessed by bots and editors. Assessments made on August 31 bring the total to 62 assessed articles over the 31-day period. On September 15, BetacommandBot assessed 40 articles from no-class to stub and start class. This bot automatically updates the talk pages of articles included in more than one WikiProject if at least one WikiProject has already assessed the material, bringing each interested WikiProject's ratings into compliance with the assessment. No B-class or higher quality assessments were given out over September, and only a small handful of importance assessments were granted. On August 31, one Low, Mid, and High importance rating was given to three separate articles. Leroy McGuirk was given the lone high-importance rating.
Oklahoma categories receive help from Texan
TexasAndroid, an administrator, assisted WikiProject Oklahoma by categorizing nearly 100 Oklahoma-related pages on September 24. The additions were made mainly to Tulsa-related pages.
"I've done the major cities in Texas in the past, and was thinking about what to do next, and decided to stay relatively close to home for now. Thus OK's big cities got done," TexasAndroid wrote on his user page.
Taskforce Tulsa, a collaboration of editors operating under WikiProject Oklahoma, has been created to increase the scope of Wikipedia's coverage of Tulsa and its surrounding areas. Taskforce Tulsa is many things, but most importantly, it is a way for editors to have a place to put Tulsa-related requests (pictures, article, expansion, collaboration) for other editors interested in Tulsa. News, guidelines, and category trees related to Tulsa articles can easily be accessed and added through the task force's project page. The taskforce is not its own WikiProject. Instead, it works in conjunction with WikiProject Oklahoma to increase the quality and scope of Tulsa-related material. Because of the increased clutter and unnecessary waste of space that would be created with a new WikiProject, editors have opted for a taskforce, or workgroup project. Rather than having a Wikiproject Oklahoma banner as well as a Wikiproject Tulsa banner on most Tulsa-related pages, editors can simply add the Tulsa Taskforce note onto the existing Wikiproject Oklahoma banner. Cleaner, clearer, and more efficient. In edit mode, such a banner would appear as this: "{{WikiProject Oklahoma|class=FA|importance=Top|tulsa-task-force=yes}}". In other words, simply adding "tulsa-task-force=yes}}" to the existing Wikiproject Oklahoma banner on an article's talk page would include that article into the Tulsa Task Force. According to an explanation on the taskforce's project page, "The Tulsa Task Force is a 'sub-wikiproject' operating 'beneath' Wikiproject Oklahoma, and is designed to assist it by focusing specifically on Tulsa-related material. Editors who are interested in expanding knowledge of Tulsa on Wikipedia may wish to consider themselves part of Taskforce Tulsa as well as Wikiproject Oklahoma." Interested parties can sign up much like a stand-alone WikiProject.
The WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter is a work in progress so please share your ideas about how the newsletter can be improved. If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the sign-up list.
This newsletter was delivered to you by Okiefromokla. If you would no longer like to receive this in your talk page, please remove your name from the sign-up list. Thanks!
Hello Phillippe, you deleted an article on Sohan Singh Bhakna that I created last night asserting it did not have significane, without either informing me or inviting a discussion. I am deeply disaapointed at the lack of wikiquette and unilateral assumption of responsibility and significance that I believe also violated the wikipedia deletions policy. I had provided a reference, and in addition had a number of other references, including peer reviewed journals which I intended to use to expand on the article. I must ask you to follow established guidelines and show more courtesy towards your fellow editors, as well as informing the article's creators when nominating for deletion.Rueben lys00:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HI there - the article was tagged for speedy deletion at 23:11 last night - not by me. I didn't delete it until almost 5 hours later, which gave you significant time to improve it. I didn't "assume" responsibility - I did what every administrator does: cleaned out the speedy deletion lists. That's what we've been asked by the community to do. I followed established guidelines exactly.
I'd be pleased to restore the article to your userspace to give you time to flesh it out, if you'd like, particularly to put in information that asserts notability. When you are done with it, I'd be happy then to move it out to the encyclopedia for you. - Philippe | Talk16:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phillippe, my apologies. I thought you tagged and deleted the article. I have re-created the article to what I believe is at least a stub level, so restoring wont be neccessary. Thanks for the offer of help though. regardsRueben lys22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea we had a pope of Wikipedia. I should run for that. If you're asking who elected me as an administrator, well the answer is "about 65 people, who participated at my RFA. You should feel free to participate there as well - your input is greatly appreciated". If, as I suspect, you're really upset because I deleted a page of yours, you should know that the page in question was tagged by one of our contributors as potentially being a biographical article that did not assert the notability of the subject in compliance with our guidelines. When I got to that article in the list, I looked at it, and agree with the user who tagged it for speedy deletion, so I deleted it. I'd be happy to restore it to your user-space if you'd like so that you can continue to work on it, and then to move it back into the encyclopedia when you've met our requirements.
Modest boost in assessed articles during September
WikiProject Oklahoma's massive list of unassessed articles got smaller over the month of September, as 45 articles were assessed by bots and editors. Assessments made on August 31 bring the total to 62 assessed articles over the 31-day period. On September 15, BetacommandBot assessed 40 articles from no-class to stub and start class. This bot automatically updates the talk pages of articles included in more than one WikiProject if at least one WikiProject has already assessed the material, bringing each interested WikiProject's ratings into compliance with the assessment. No B-class or higher quality assessments were given out over September, and only a small handful of importance assessments were granted. On August 31, one Low, Mid, and High importance rating was given to three separate articles. Leroy McGuirk was given the lone high-importance rating.
Oklahoma categories receive help from Texan
TexasAndroid, an administrator, assisted WikiProject Oklahoma by categorizing nearly 100 Oklahoma-related pages on September 24. The additions were made mainly to Tulsa-related pages.
"I've done the major cities in Texas in the past, and was thinking about what to do next, and decided to stay relatively close to home for now. Thus OK's big cities got done," TexasAndroid wrote on his user page.
Taskforce Tulsa, a collaboration of editors operating under WikiProject Oklahoma, has been created to increase the scope of Wikipedia's coverage of Tulsa and its surrounding areas. Taskforce Tulsa is many things, but most importantly, it is a way for editors to have a place to put Tulsa-related requests (pictures, article, expansion, collaboration) for other editors interested in Tulsa. News, guidelines, and category trees related to Tulsa articles can easily be accessed and added through the task force's project page. The taskforce is not its own WikiProject. Instead, it works in conjunction with WikiProject Oklahoma to increase the quality and scope of Tulsa-related material. Because of the increased clutter and unnecessary waste of space that would be created with a new WikiProject, editors have opted for a taskforce, or workgroup project. Rather than having a Wikiproject Oklahoma banner as well as a Wikiproject Tulsa banner on most Tulsa-related pages, editors can simply add the Tulsa Taskforce note onto the existing Wikiproject Oklahoma banner. Cleaner, clearer, and more efficient. In edit mode, such a banner would appear as this: "{{WikiProject Oklahoma|class=FA|importance=Top|tulsa-task-force=yes}}". In other words, simply adding "tulsa-task-force=yes}}" to the existing Wikiproject Oklahoma banner on an article's talk page would include that article into the Tulsa Task Force. According to an explanation on the taskforce's project page, "The Tulsa Task Force is a 'sub-wikiproject' operating 'beneath' Wikiproject Oklahoma, and is designed to assist it by focusing specifically on Tulsa-related material. Editors who are interested in expanding knowledge of Tulsa on Wikipedia may wish to consider themselves part of Taskforce Tulsa as well as Wikiproject Oklahoma." Interested parties can sign up much like a stand-alone WikiProject.
The WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter is a work in progress so please share your ideas about how the newsletter can be improved. If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the sign-up list.
This newsletter was delivered to you by Okiefromokla. This is a one-time delivery to all Wikiproject Oklahoma members to boost interest in the newsletter. In the future, if you would like to receive this newsletter in your talk page, please insert your name in the sign-up list. Thanks!
I am not sure why I am not entitled to know who the primary account holder is - I filed the account to know if the attack account was created by someone with whom I have had a dispute with before. I was the sole subject of this attack account who filed two separate 3RR complaints, one of which was completely erroneous. It was clearly someone I have had contact and possible disputes with, and I think i have a right to know at least the true username of someone stalking my edits. I have never received any contact from Heavy Brother, despite the little song and dance he did for the admins, talking about how he was going to contact me, apologizing for the false 3RR.
Usually, someone who creates a sock account incorrectly, if reinstated, clearly identifies the doppleganger nature of the account and the parent. A private account used solely to attack another user doesn't seem to be in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. I should have a right to know which user is specifically not employing AGF when it comes to me, so I can either avoid or be prepared against their attack efforts. - Arcayne(cast a spell)03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only person still keeping this alive is you. That user did exactly what I told them to: ceased using that account immediately upon finding out that it was not allowed as a single-purpose account. There have been no contributions since 9/25 from that account. This matter is closed. There is no further need for you to keep this alive. - Philippe | Talk14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe the primary user stopped using that particular account for attacking me. However, without knowing who they are, who's to say they won't just set up another account in the future if I by their perceptions step on their shoes? I don't care about this user's sock account; I want to know who the primary is so I can be on guard. You guys certainly aren't going to monitor the user in the future. Why don't I have the right to know who set up a single-purpose attack account? - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, we're not going to go on a fishing expedition... Checkuser isn't going to tell you who else used that IP address. Second of all, I'm not going to support leaving this issue open. If you believe that someone is harassing you, I'm happy to look into that, but I'm not going to allow this issue to fester. - Philippe | Talk20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response, my inquiry wasn't a fishing expedition - it was an attempt to identify who was using an illegal, anonymous sock-puppet to stalk my edits and harass me, which I think is a pretty valid description of the person's actions. I supplied two of three possible persons who I thought might be using the sock so as to make it easier to identify the sock. The checkuser is supposed to confirm if one of the users in question was using the sock. That process was interrupted before it could be resolved.
As well, I do belive that the presence of a single-purpose sock account used to target me fairly fulfills the criteria of harassment, but as I don't know the results of the checkuser, I am unsure as to where the harassment is coming from. Three account-holders immediately come to mind, but without the results of the checkuser, any such accusation would be inverified. I don't want this to fester, either, Philippe, but I have the right to know what primary account felt the need to harass me in such a fashion. If it was an admin, their behavior is de-sys-op worthy, as an admin should know what an illegal sock is. If it is an experienced editor, they also know the ethics of creating illegal socks. If it is a new user, then they need mentoring. In any case, I want to know, so I can be on my guard. This situation is analagous to being stalked, and your response is akin to asking me to just forget about it in the hopes that the stalker will lose interest and focus their attentions elsewhere. Of course, that is an incorrect assumption. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say clearly, in case I haven't previously: I absolutely understand your frustration, and know that I would share it if I were in your situation. It occurs to me that in this entire conversation, I haven't really said that to you.
Then, next, let me also say clearly that the user in question was not a sysop - unless of course there's something even stranger than I know going on. I can say, however, with 99% certainty (leaving that 1% chance for the really odd one-in-a-million chance) that the user is not a sysop. I will also tell you that the user in question now knows the gravity of their action, and that it is, in my opinion, best for the encyclopedia that we move on from this issue. I can say with some certainty that the user in question will not engage in that type of behavior again.
Third, as for harassment: I will accept an argument of harassment and look into it more clearly if you can demonstrate that you have been damaged, in some way beyond the simple filing of false reports. I know it's frustrating, but it's not the end of the world. I'm going to ask you to take a deep breath and move on. The situation is resolved.
Finally, you seem concerned that no one may be following up on this situation. Put that fear to rest - I'm watching the user in question closely, and if they step out of bounds again, they understand clearly that there will be real and definite consequences.
This community has empowered me, as an administrator, with some discretion, and I've chosen to exercise it in this case. I believe a potentially positive contributor stepped out of line - they got their wrist slapped firmly, and are back within the grounds of good online etiquette. I think that, at least so far, handling of the situation has resulted in a net gain for the encyclopedia, and I stand by my actions.
I know it's frustrating - I'd be frustrated, too. Please understand that I'm honestly doing what I think is best here. If you'd like, I'd be happy to get the opinion of another admin. There are several who would be pleased to look at the situation from a neutral point of view and I'd be pleased to ask any of them for a second opinion. - Philippe | Talk22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, i don't think consulting another admin in this matter is going to be necessary. While I am displeased in the extreme over the actions of the primary user (and their subsequent reticence to cowboy up and announce themselves) as well as the actions of not-very-neutral admin FuturePerfect to shut down the inquiry (as he was the admin who followed the initial 3RR claim to block me) to shut down the checkuser inquiry and minimize his own culpability. I am willing to take you at your word that you will keep an eye on the user.
I think that it is fair to ask that if a second violation comes to pass, that I be notified of the primary account-holder's handle right away - as I will ask for the person to be removed from the community permanently (as keel-hauling seems a bit extreme). I certainly hope that the user has learned their lesson, and can otherwise contribute in a beneficial way to the community.
Hi I was told by someone on the unprotection request page to come and talk to you. You protected In Rainbows because of vandalism but there isn't any vandalism on it. Replenished entry23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you know, "vandalism" was a really bad word choice there. I accept responsibility for that. However, I stand by the protection - the cover art was becoming a nightmare, there were sourcing issues, and wayyyy too many reverts as a result of them. It's just semi-protection, established users should still be able to edit the page. - Philippe | Talk03:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it possible to semi protect a page because of "Crazy vandalism" that turns out not to be "crazy" vandalsim after all. I could buy that if you'd put "looks like vandalism" or "might be some vandalism here" but "crazy vandalism" really implies you've had a good look at it and it's not just normal vandalism. It suggests you've been so struck by how bad it is that you've gone out of your way to write that it's "crazy". Changing your mind now just smacks of back tracking to find a reason to keep it semi protected. In any case, I don't see how the policy says you can semi protect a page for the reasons you've given.
"The cover art was becoming a nightmare"
The blank cover art image invited people to upload cover art so they did. It wasn't malicious, it was good faith adding of cover art because the page said to. Anyway, after some comments I left on the discussion page someone's reduced the size of the cover art template to 0, so it doesn't sit there shouting "PLEASE UPLOAD COVER ART TO THIS PAGE". That's a much better solution than semi protecting the page. Problem solved by applying brain rather than having to semi protect. I reckon a template that says "Album has no cover art, don't upload any until it has some" or something along those lines would be a good idea as well.
"There were sourcing issues"
What sourcing issues? Out of the 106 edits since the album came out, how many are sourcing issues and how many are serious enough to protect a page. Come to think of it, is "sourcing issues" even a reason to protect a page. Aren't you supposed to request sources!!!
"Way too many reverts"
How many were reverted and how many were reverted from users that were less than 3 days old or IP accounts?
"It's just semi protection"
The policy doesn't say it's OK to semi protect a page for reasons that aren't part of the policy because it's "only" semi protection Replenished entry05:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank you for your comments. In cases like this, wide discretion is typically given to administrators, and I think it's best used in this case. I'll happily take a few minutes later today to re-evaluate that page. Can't do it now, on my way out to work. Right now, I think the semi-protection is best left on, but I'll re-evaluate it later today. - Philippe | Talk13:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your action and for your comments. We were at the point of not knowing what to do next to try to get things under control. Hopefully this will help. Dbiel(Talk)04:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Philippe. I would like to request examination for a possible user block at this time (User: Coterminous). You can examine the NCCC talk page and see that we are at a complete impasse with a new user who insists on unilaterally re-writing wikipedia rules (examination of the archived talk page will shed further light on this) Please feel free to contact me directly with anything. --LoverOfArt17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the talk page, and come to the conclusion that the bounds of our policies on civility have been severly tested. I left a final warning about personal attacks on the user's talk page. I still believe it's possible to come to an understanding about this page, and encourage you to investigate Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures and consider mediation. If the boundaries of good taste or etiquette are crossed again, I will not hesitate to issue appropriate blocks. I hope that all parties involved will come to the table ready to discuss and come to an agreement. Thank you for keeping me notified about this process, and good luck! - Philippe | Talk19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to proceed, but did want to give you an update.
User:Coterminous has ignored all requests related to mediation including not even responding to my request for him to express his views on the subject, posted on the article talk page as well as on his own talk page. His edit summary response regarding working together on one very difficult section was:
As noted, he failed to log in prior to posting but did manually sign the post. Any suggestions on what to try next, if anything? Dbiel(Talk)04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, I don't know how much of the archived discussion you had a chance to review, to see what led to my post. You may not feel you need to, but had I posted the remarks and editorial tactics of LoverOfArt, he would be under consideration for blockage from Wikipedia, not me.Coterminous12:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this issue:
"What's going on?
Coterminous is a new Wikipedia user and doesn't fully understand what is appropriate for this site. .... LoverofArt has posted false and misleading and defamatory information about NCCC at the Wikipedia site and resorted to repeated vitriolic personal attacks on Coterminous which finally prompted an angry response."
The above statement is not a wild accusation from a fool. I once helped copyedit for publication a book by Senator Moynihan of New York. LoverofArt shows blatant disregard either for editorial honesty or accuracy, with the net result being grossly negative and inaccurate statements about NCCC posted at the Wikipedia NCCC site by LoverofArt. His ugly rants against me, combined with the false and misleading information he has posted, combined into a toxic brew. Please tell him and his cohorts to back off the "chastising" of me, as Che Nuevera puts it, and focus on content.Coterminous13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From June to September of 2007, several false and misleading critical statements appeared at the National Civilian Community Corps (also known as AmeriCorps NCCC) page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civilian_Community_Corps), in violation of Wikipedia standards. This is the false text as it appeared:
National Civilian Community Corps
"...Criticisms
The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle".[4] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud"[5], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years." Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it "a fraud".
^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188385,00.html ^ http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm"
Wikipedia relies on its readers and volunteer contributors to avoid or challenge and correct misleading or false information.
The following has been called to our attention:
1. The statement that read "...Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud," cited as its source an article at this address by Bovard: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm Nowhere in that article does Bovard make that statement. No mention of "AmeriCorps NCCC" nor of the "National Civilian Community Corps" appears in that article, nor is AmeriCorps NCCC called a 'waste and fraud." We regret the error.
2. The same sentence went on to state the following: "...Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud", in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain ..."
Upon investigation, this statement turns out to be untrue. Bovard's book (published in hardcover by St. Martin's press) does not contain a chapter of criticisms of AmeriCorps NCCC in the book "Feeling Your Pain. In fact, neither "AmeriCorps NCCC" nor the "National Civilian Community Corps are mentioned at all in the text of that book nor in the book index. (The chapter in question concerns the umbrella program, AmeriCorps, but does not mention the program known as "AmeriCorps NCCC'" or the "National Civilian Community Corps".
(The only mention to NCCC is in the footnotes, referring to a speech by then-president Clinton, praising, not criticizing, the NCCC.)
In sum, the book "Feeling Your Pain" does not dedicate "an entire chapter of criticisms" of AmeriCorps NCCC, contrary to the information posted at the Wikipedia website. We regret the error.
3. Also untrue was the sentence "Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it [i.e., AmeriCorps NCCC] "a fraud". This sentence was misleading and false. It was placed at the National Civilian Community Corps page and referred to the antecedent in the previous sentence, the AmeriCorps NCCC.
The claim relied on the article by Bovard at http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm. No mention of either the "National Civilian Community Corps" nor of "AmeriCorps NCCC" appears in that article. No evidence has been put forward to support the statement that Mr. Sweet ever labeled AmeriCorps NCCC a "fraud." We regret the error.
Wikipedia deeply regrets that this misleading text appeared at our National Civilian Community Corps website and that it persisted for as long as it did.
The editor responsible for its appearance and continued re-emergence will no longer have access to the National Civilian Community Corps Wikipedia entry.
Signed: _____
[Philippe - Calls to move forward on the National Civilian Community Corps page, to be a team player, etc., would be better received if Wikipedia posted a note something like the above at the NCCC site - not to mention, it might restore Wikipedia's credibility on the subject. I don't know if there is a snowball's chance of that happening, but at least this gives you some information to process so you can evaluate the current situation. Given the nature of the NCCC - a substantial and serious component of U.S. disaster relief and mitigation capacity - and its recent near-demise following misleading claims like those posted at Wikipedia, the statement above is not written as amusement.]Coterminous16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This most recent 'fantasy oriented' post is emblematic of a large part of the reason why I requested this user be blocked. In addition to generally incorrect and inappropriate edits to the NCCC article all around, it's pretty apparent that we are dealing with a fairly severe personality disorder. You can start from square one with all of the patience and good faith that many of us have already extended and expended, but we've tried that (see discussion log) and it's utterly pointless. I'll renew my call for a permanent user and IP range block. --LoverOfArt17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coterminous, you're right about one thing: there's not a snowball's chance in hell of anything like that being published by this encyclopedia, and certainly not under my signature. Administrators are not empowered to make statements such as you suggest, and I assure you that they are out of the norm for the project. I encourage you, for the final time, to take advantage of the dispute resolution procedures, beginning with mediation. If you do not accept mediation, other steps will have to be taken. - Philippe | Talk19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something was just called to my attention that I missed in my skimming of this conversation. LoverOfArt, your description of someone as a "borderline personality disorder" is inappropriate and will not be tolerated. I will not allow personal attacks (or a professional judgment that you may or may not be professionally qualified to give, but it would be unethical to give under any circumstances) in an attempt to warn people away from personal attacks! - Philippe | Talk16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good Morning, Philippe. The post above yours, by LoverofArt, is typical of his posts in my direction. An ugly personal attack, by a person who has in essence defamed a widely respected organization -- the National Civilian Community Corps -- by posting false and misleading information at the Wikipedia website.
If your / Wikipedia's best idea is that what should happen next is that I enter into a prolonged dialogue with that person, hoping to reason with him/her, while he/she continues to exert control over content and issue ugly diatribes, then your processes leave a great deal to be desired. A responsible adult -- a real Editor -- should have interceded long ago. He/she and the others working over the NCCC text at this time seem to feel that any statement introduced by the phrase "According to ___," does not belong at Wikipedia. As I read it, there was objection at one of your pages to placing references at the end of that phrase rather than at the end of the quotation. Why an encyclopedia would have as a policy including bald claims (as if fact) without reference to the source in its text eludes me. It would give the impression that the encyclopedia had evaluated the statement, which is obviously not the case.
I appreciate Wikipedia's effort to provide freely accessible information to the public. I am not impressed, however, by the response to gross errors made at the Wikipedia site. Your crew is attacking the messenger at least in part because it is the message that it does not like.
A pretty sorry performance, which you seem to be joining by failing to address the issues I raise or the attacks on me.
Pull LoverofArt out of this situation and I will join in a dispute resolution process regarding editing the NCCC site. I refuse to have further dealings with him/her.Coterminous11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, would it be possible to get some sort of a finite time frame on when we can proceed with this? A lot of effort and calls for cooperation have already been tried with this person (including those I've made myself), resulting in a necessary full page protection. It's apparent this user is utterly clueless about how Wikipedia works (as evidenced by their previous claims that they are not a "paid editor" of Wikipedia, or this most recent delusion of their own make-believe "formal Wikipedia statement") yet has shown a near complete disdain for the rules that govern the article and a total unwillingness as a new user to learn them and participate accordingly. There are serious WP:POV, WP:Notability and self promotion issues inserted by this user that presently plague the article. As much effort as we have all expended in trying to get him/her to understand the site a bit better, replies like the one above are what we get in return. I know we have full page protection for another few days. Do you think it would be possible to resolve this with a conclusion by that time? I hope that Coterminous completely changes into a new person and abandons his/her current method of operation, however, I'd wager a years pay against that happening and its very frustrating to see so much pointless 'effort' going into furthering a good faith, constructive dialog that has clearly shown that it won't have any positive result. --LoverOfArt20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LoverofArt, my patience has very nearly expired. Coterminous, I will not ask good faith editors to retire from discussions because you simply disagree with them. Your actions are bordering on disruptive, and I'm going to ask you to calm down and edit in good faith at this point, or you will be blocked from editing for disruption. - Philippe | Talk14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is not intended as disruptive - it is simply to show you what has gone on. This is a quote about me by LoverofArt, from Dbiel's page, where I posted it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbiel
"Borderline Lunacy
I have never, ever in my history on Wikipedia, seen a more incohearant, jumbled, senseless, excessively long-winded, foaming-at-the-mouth sort of reply as I'm seeing here with this person (Coterminous). This individuals responses in the discussion section are nearly impossible to comprehend and so schizophrenic in their continuity that I seriously doubt anyone else is able to decipher their meaning as well. ... -LoverOfArt 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"
Would you feel comfortable being pressed into a joint editing venture with someone who expressed themselves to you in this fashion?Coterminous21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That begs the question. You and your colleagues consistently argue that the only way forward is in dialogue or mediation with LoverofArt, a "good faith" editor, you say. Your words: "I will not ask good faith editors to retire from discussions because you simply disagree with them." Neither his attacks on me nor his editing technique show much "good faith."
So, yes, you seem to be in effect pressing a joint venture - intimating that either I join with LoverofArt in working on this project or else depart or be blocked from the site.
For all of the speculation about my supposed detriments, I have nonetheless managed to write for and be published by the Investigative Reporters and Editors Journal - more than once - a journal that is published by the respected School of Journalism at the University of Missouri in Columbia.
My work was checked by the Executive Editor and staff -- some of the most competent fact checkers in the entire business.
No organization likes critics, and the tendency to circle the wagons and define outsiders as illegitimate is predictable, understandable.
(reverted well intentioned revert as unfortunately this represents the problem that needs to be dealt with, and as this is Philippe's page, he should have the option of handling it he chooses rather than reverting it for him)
You (and your colleagues) consistently argue that the only way forward is in dialogue or mediation with LoverofArt, a "good faith" editor, so you say. (In your words: "I will not ask good faith editors to retire from discussions because you simply disagree with them.") You are mistaken: Neither LoverofArt's vicious attacks on me nor his malicious editing show "good faith."
For all of the speculation about my supposed detriments, I have nonetheless managed to write for and be published by the Investigative Reporters and Editors Journal - more than once - a journal that is published by the respected School of Journalism at the University of Missouri in Columbia.
My detailed reporting was checked personally by the IRE Executive Editor (and staff) -- some of the most competent professionals in the entire business. They not only welcomed lengthy documentation of work submitted, they required it. At this site, detailed information simply invites scorn and diatribes. My contempt for the combination of editorial garbage and under-the-belt attacks spewing from LoverofArt is absolute. He/she is a hack and a punk - I hope some day he/she gets what is coming to him/her, with interest. A fine representative of Wikipedia. Block away if you want, I won't be missing a thing, except the dirty feeling that comes from reading the crap emanating from that paragon of Good Faith, LoverofArt.Coterminous04:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to barge into someone Else's talk page, but I feel that I must. Coterminous, you MUST stop the personal attacks, if you wish, ignore the term "good faith editor" when applied to LoverOfArt; that is not the issue and besides your are taking the term out of its proper context. The issue is ANY editor who is working without disrupting Wikipedia will be allowed to edit as they choose regardless if the content is being disputed. Note, there are limits, such as profanity. Content disputes are handled on the article talk page, but WITHOUT personal attacks. It is OK to attack the content, not the editor. Please note that an editor can be grossly wrong in his/her content and still be acting in good faith. "Gross errors" have nothing to do with "good faith editing". Gross errors will NOT be permitted to remain in Wikipedia. They are dealt with in the normal editorial process, but not by attacking the editor who inserted them. So far you are the one who has refused to participate in the editorial process. You input would be useful and accepted, but ONLY if it comes WITHOUT personal attacks. Dbiel(Talk)12:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think we're done here. Good reply, Dbiel, but my patience has been exhausted. Conterminous, you crossed the line with the line about "crap emanating from that paragon of Good Faith", which is a blatant violation of our civility policies. Take the next 48 hours to consider those policies. Once that time is over, your input is welcome, but insults are not. - Philippe | Talk14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not having meaningful content in the wike article we are putting together for Murchison Middle School in Austin, Tx. We are constructing this page incrementally...
We are going to re-edit and add additional information - should we pass that by you before we add it to the wiki?
Lenny
Hi Lenny - no problem at all. What I'd suggest is that you create it in a sandbox page (for instance, if you click on the red link next to this, it will create a sandbox page in your user space ----> User:Lblumber/Sandbox <----- and once you're ready, leave me a note and I'll happily review it and make any suggestions, or move it out into the encyclopedia for you. - Philippe | Talk01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One question - I'd like to include an image of the middle school that's on the PTA website. We can get one of the PTA officials to email you with approval. How do y'all (remember, this is Texas...) want a release for this picture documented or phrased?
Thanks again - Lenny
Phillipe,
I need to pester you again - is there a way you could restore the page you deleted and/or email it to me?
As they say at the explosives factory - Dynamite!... Many Thanks for restoring the page. We'll get busy on reading the docs, updating the page and then ping you when we're at a stopping point.
On a separate thread - I've been turning into a Wiki evangelist lately. I belong to a local S&R dive team and I maintain a wiki on the team at http://www.lennyblumberg.com/TCEU. I would be very grateful if you could spend a minute or so looking it over and offering some quick suggestions for getting it up to Wiki standards. Since it's a private wiki, it's kinda loosey-goosey as far as presentation and format. I noticed that the Anderson High School has a particular template that's used for schools - are you aware of any such template for volunteer organizations such as these?
I figure I report it and let someone with a badge decide: if I'm right, I'm right, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, unless they're obviously a vandal. Just following percieved procedure. HalfShadow03:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and no harm done (and by the way, someone else blocked him... I disagree, but hey, that's life). Under WP:U, we have issues with:
Confusing usernames make it unduly difficult to identify users by their username.
Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the user.
Disruptive usernames disrupt or misuse Wikipedia, or imply an intent to do so.
Promotional usernames attempt to promote a group or company on Wikipedia.
Offensive usernames are likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
Excessively long names go under "Confusing", but the trend right now is toward giving the user the benefit of the doubt and asking them to change rather than blocking, unless it's blatantly offensive. - Philippe | Talk04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The LGBT studies project has been rather quiet of late. Though we've added over 180 new members in the last year, only a small percentage are active participants. If you haven't visited our project or talk page in a while, please stop by for a look. Also, if you happen to bump into another editor who you feel might enjoy working with us, please extend an invitation. There's lot's do do, and the active members would sincerely appreciate some help.
Our Peer review project is struggling at the present, with only a few people reviewing the articles. While it is certainly possible to submit articles for a general peer review, a review by members of the LGBT community can be of additional value for LGBT specific writing. There are several articles currently up for review on a wide range of topics. At the very least, reading the articles will undoubtedly broaden your intellectual horizons :-)
At the moment, David Le Brocq, Malmö Devilants and Trajectory Hermeneutics are up for deletion review. Please take a look at them and make your voice heard at the deletion review. Articles nominated for deletion also present a challenge for improvement. See what you can do, and watchlist our deletion review page.
The Pederasty articles continue to be a point of controversy both within and outside of our community. Various editors have suggested that to include them as LGBT Project related somehow taints the project and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Other editors have stated that the articles, and especially the Pederasty article, are part of the core of LGBT studies. Well meaning editors continue to remove our tags from the articles themselves as well as the talk pages. If you have time, please read the articles and watchlist them to protect them from vandalism and well meaning but counterproductive edits.
The list of LGBT people has survived its 4th nomination for deletion. Please watchlist this list to protect it from vandalism and unsourced additions. There are many in Wikipedia who would like to see this Featured status list removed from the project. It is up to us to keep it to such a high caliber that it never is removed.
Our project member David Shankbone is now working as a journalist for Wikinews, as well as continuing to improve our project and Wikipedia as a whole with his photographs. A sincere thank you goes out to him for all of his hard work. Wikipedia would not shine nearly as brightly without your contributions, David.
Happy Halloween, everybody! Be happy and celebrate!
The surviving life partner of prominent LGBT rights activist Barbara Gittings recently called one of our editors and, among other things, complimented us on what a great job our project is doing on Wikipedia. Thanks to everyone who contributes to this project, either through their article edits or support for other project members. We really are making an difference here!
Member assistance
Some of our project members have been having difficulties related to editing on the encyclopedia. If you are feeling frustrated or distressed by your editing experience, please don't keep it to yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and we are all here to help one another. Drop a line on our talkpage or on another editor's page, and other members of the LGBT project will happily give you the support you want and need.
Lastly, Halloween is just around the corner. More than most holidays, Halloween is a holiday embraced by and tailor made to our community (though God only knows why we are invisible in the Halloween article here. Perhaps somebody would like to rectify that editing oversight). Have fun, everybody, and remember to both trick and treat!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
I am not sure how often you check this, but thank you for warning me. I understand. I had just been trying to revert edits which also had death threats in them, but thank you for warning me, I will pay more attention next time. (NOTE: This message is not sarcastic.) JpGrB15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, may I ask one really quick favor? On the Only Built 4 Cuban Linx II page, there are many fake tracks at the bottom (one of which is the "death threat" mentioned above), while also listing websites that have nothing to do with the page. Is it possible to have these taken out of here? Thank you. JpGrB15:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although generally admins are loathe to make changes to a page which is fully protected, in this case there is substantial obvious vandalism, including the section you pointed out, which I have now removed from the page. In the future, it's probably best not to get into an edit war over things like this - it tends to just escalate the situation. Instead, post about it at the administrators' incident board and someone will take a look at it for you. - Philippe | Talk16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Range blocks scare me. I haven't, because I'm not sure I'd do it right and the possibility for collateral damage is so huge. If there's someone smarter than I that wants to try it out, I'm sure I'd refer to said person as cuddly and adorable. - Philippe | Talk19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to figure out where the template that shows the specific coloration changes to the Heroes (TV series) character (and everything else) template, which is using reverse-type text coloring in the infobox headers to distinguish itself. With other templates, I can usually find the material and fix it, but for some reason, it seems missing. Where do I find it? I've found the following self-described Heroes templates:
I saw your comment on Mexican-American War edit summary. I've kept this pretty low-key just in case I've accused the wrong user, but I've got a checkuser process underway as well. BusterD20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Phillipe: You are a jerk and a loser. Why couldn't you wait just a week before deleting the article Gabriel Luciano? I asked you to wait just a week, but no, you had to be a moron and delete it a freaking one a.m.? You need to get a life and get some friends.
Dear Gilbert: You know, that's the kindest thing you've ever said to me. For the sake of discussion, though, I deleted the article because it failed to assert notability according to our policies. I mean, it REALLY failed. LOTS. Now, had you asked politely, I probably would have restored the article into your userspace to give you the opportunity to work on it someplace where it was safe. In fact, I'd probably STILL do that if you asked. Cuz that's the type of guy I am. - Philippe | Talk22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - the page, as I deleted it, was a substantial copy of a website [30], including ranks, exact market numbers, schedules, etc. It would probably not be eligible for a restore. However, I'd be happy to email the text of it to you (I hesitate to put it back on wiki, since my stand is that it's a copyvio) if you'd like to email me to request a copy at philippe.wiki@gmail.com. At that point, if you'd like to rewrite it in such a way that it's no longer a copyvio, I certainly wouldn't object to the page reappearing. Hope that's at least some help to you. - Philippe | Talk00:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I would like to just thank you for exercising extra caution in the blocking my IP the other day when you perceived that I was making too many non-constructive edits. When it comes to a primary information source for millions of humans worldwide, you can't be too safe, eh? I noticed that after you had done so, another Admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me blocked my user talk page for a period of 6 weeks. (Sheesh!). Is that normal? Seems a bit extreme regardless of the offence. I noticed that said editor is taking a wikibreak and attributed the extreme reaction to some feelings of stress in his life. My immediate reaction was to extend my sincerest sympathy and try to cheer him up with warm thoughts, however upon finding that this editor's talk page was somehow protected, I realized that this would not be possible. Would you be so kind as to pass my sentiments along. You'll find that now as being unblocked, I have refrained from further editing so as to not cause more stress to yourself or other editors who might be offended by my view of things. The subjectivity of reality seems to be a concept that is too radical for this audience. Thanks again, I hope things are going well for yourself. You might try questioning your norms sometime. It is an extremely liberating experience. 72.225.36.15801:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I couldn't agree with you more. Questioning your norms is a great experience for everyone to go through. However, I'm not sure I'll ever think that adding an image of horse semen is really appropriate for an article about mayonaisse. I do appreciate your forbearance now, though. - Philippe | Talk02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philipe, I have made two fairly cogent arguments (IMO) supporting the removal of the ejaculation video in Ejaculate. You blocked me very briefly because I was participating in WP:VAN blanking repeatedly without discussion. Makes sense, as I pointed out at the bottom of Talk:Ejaculation here [31]. However, how much discussion is required before someone can engage safely in an edit war? That is of course not my goal in the least, but the video is destructive to wikipedia, and if wikipedia is going to stand against the inevitable Citizendium or the eventually even tougher competition New World Encyclopedia, then I would argue that such things should be avoided.
I established two reasons for this. 1st, I believe that the video is unattributed data, in that there is no authoritative citation present to indicate whether or not it is indicative of a real, normal, nor even common ejaculation. A donated video from the Kinsey Institute or similar would be more appropriate. 2nd, and this point is slowly becoming my primary point though it started off only distantly being of interest to me, the appropriateness of this video is not well argued. The arguments for it are very weak, and I believe the video is destructive in that it will lend further to the growing dismisal of wikipedia as a source of serious information. My analogy (crassly stated, I'm sorry) is that the GI_Tract and Defecate pages would not bennefit from a video of me defecating.Tgm102416:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make good arguments. However, I diverge from you when you start to think it's okay to remove without discussion, or to engage in an edit war. The thing that makes us a good encyclopedia - beyond the obvious, the writing - is that we are a people of dialogue. Rather than engage in blind reverts, it's better to go through the dispute resolution steps that are available to you in an attempt to build consensus. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if all contributors decided "okay, we've talked about it enough, now I'm just going to revert to my favorite revision". So, while I personally agree with your base premise, I disagree with your tactics. - Philippe | Talk18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blind reverts I've done are as you saw them, but otherwise you completely misunderstood me, but as I re-read my initial paragraph I can see how someone would take it the way you did, so I apologize. I'll be clear. I am not advocating nor am interested in an edit-war. Nor am I asking for wikipedian guidelines regarding it per se as if it were a valid technique. I was asking where the line was drawn for meeting discussion requirements. Your chaos supposition "okay, we've talked about it enough..." is actually a problem: what do you do both sides are at a deadlock? Look at the arguments in Talk:Ejaculation carefully. I believe the problem and motivations are as I described.Tgm102400:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page on Gynecomastia has become a cess pool of unimportant topics and talk, take a look at it and you will see what i mean. Could you please delete for me.--Iceglass00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are not talking about how to improve the article anymore, just their own Gynecomastia that is why i think it should be deleted so we can start a new dicussion that is more apporite.--Iceglass13:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to try to redirect the conversation there, but I'm not sure there's precedent for deleting a whole talk page that is, at least tangentially, related to the topic at hand. - Philippe | Talk18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if I could impose on you to take a few minutes and review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases.
I seem to be of the minority point of view and maybe you could either add support to keeping the list or help me see where I might be totally off base in my thinking. Thank you in advance.
And to add my voice to the clamoring throng seeking your assistance, I have this itch in the middle of my back that i can't reach. Could you get it for me? :P - Arcayne(cast a spell)03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk: Frida Kahlo, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. - Philippe | Talk22:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, whom I attacked causing you to block me, please, because I have no idea? At least you should have mentioned just one person, please! -70.18.5.21911:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently made edits to Jonestown removing somethings that I explained in the talk page of said article. I do have some history of being called a vandal in my talk page. This is one of my first "major" contributions since the dispute of my vandalism. Since I removed somethings out of said article, I'm a little worried that they may accuse me of vandalism. I explained my reasoning behind my actions in the article's discussion page. I just want to make sure and have someone double check before other users get to it. All I want to know is if my edit was good or not. If the edit was not helpful or wrong let me know my faults for future reference. I'm still new to editing and would appreciate this guidance. I only ask because I am unsure myself on my edit. By the way I also edited it under my IP address before I logged in. Riffsofcobain18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I agree with your edits, and appreciate that you told people in your edit summary to check the talk page. About the only thing I'd point out is that you did it as an IP and answered under your account name, but that's just a little picky thing and anyone who looks at the article history will figure it out quickly. I think you did everything correctly there. Good job! - Philippe | Talk20:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I hope you'll be around tomorrow when the block expires and he does it again. I am assuming the next block will be longer (a lot longer). But hopefully you'll be around whenver he does it again since you know about the situation already. - Rjd006001:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that I will be here, but if I'm not, feel free to email me at philippe.wiki@gmail.com. I can hop on in a flash and I'm ALWAYS checking my email. - Philippe | Talk02:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous! I'm glad the AFD was delete, hopefully that'll cut this guy off, but I suspect he'll find another title to start it under and we'll be cleaning that up off and on for a while. - Philippe | Talk14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see...I wonder which account he used. I checked the blocking admin's conrib's to try and find out but I didn't see it. - Rjd006015:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably correct. Since there seems to be some national funding involved, there probably are some RS out there (although I couldn't turn up any), so I'm not going to AfD it. I've done by best to fix the article, and hopefully someone will turn up the refs at some point. Cheers, --Bfigura(talk)05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: I've tried speedying that before, but the tag was removed by an IP (the contrib history suggests the IP might not be a sock, based on a different level of interests). Hopefully this one will go through. Best, --Bfigura(talk)16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I elected to just handle that one the "old-fashioned way" and delete it myself. On further reflection, I don't need more input, it's clearly an advert. :-) - Philippe | Talk16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you agree that LoverOfArt's statements that "we are dealing with a fairly severe personality disorder" is also clearly inappropriate, particularly since I told him more than once that he was coming awfully close to personal attacks. I recognize that it is surely not your intention to condone such behavior, but I feel it's very important to impress upon LoverOfArt that there are no exceptions to WP:NPA.
I'm overturning your block on CoyoteBill - the account appears to be here only for vandalism and I have blocked it indefinably. If you feel I am in error, please re-block for whatever time you think is appropriate and I won't revert you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Could you please assist me with understanding your recent decisions at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? You say the User:HCSO is not used solely for promotion but all this user has done is create a user page which is a carbon copy of the website of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. This user has done nothing but self-promotion. Secondly, you say that User:ActivelyOUT has only made one edit which it self reverted. It reverted an advert after I flagged it as such. But surely the number of edits is irrelevant. I reported it to usernames requiring administrator attention; not to vandals requiring user attention. Therefore the number of posts is irrelevant. This username is the name of a website and the only post has been to advertise that website. The username is therefore in breach of WP rules for usernames. I'm new here, so if I've got this wrong I'm happy to learn, but I would appreciate some clarification for your decision. Many Thanks. B1atv22:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't deal with HCSO - that was Neil. :-) I didn't do anything about ActivelyOUT, because - contrary to what you expressed - the number of edits is NOT irrelevant. The trend right now is to not block a name until it's proven to be damaging the encyclopedia in some way. In this case, the name was in error, realized the error (with your help), and then self-reverted it. I honestly don't believe we'll have any other problems with them and the result was that we didn't have to block them. Blocks can be tremendously discouraging to a new user - I prefer to not to do them for folks in good faith, particularly if they are called on their error and self-revert. However, I *did* add the name to my list of folks to check on occasionally, and if I see issues, I'll take action then. I hope this makes sense - feel free to ask me if you have any other questions. - Philippe | Talk22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. It makes a lot of sense. I hope you didn't mind me asking. I simply wanted to understand the decisions to ensure I didn't make future reports un-necessarily. You've helped with that, and I can understand that "genuine mistakes" shouldn't be lumped with "deliberate spammers". Thanks again. B1atv22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the one that pissed me off too. I just noticed that I didn't actually indef block him, though, which is what I intended to do. I got distracted by the telephone. I'm off to fix that now. - Philippe | Talk23:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see. Cheers. I'm sure if he returns and does the exact same thing (vandalising the same articles, attacking the same editors(there's about three/four)), I'll be the first to report him. AngelOfSadness talk 23:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am kinda concerned that the connecting of the characters' abilities from Heroes to the list of comic book superpowers is OR by synthesis. I posted my concern here. What are your thoughts on the subject? - Arcayne(cast a spell)03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm WAY out of my comfort area here - I don't know the subject matter at all. But, I would say that based on what I see, while I appreciate your concern, I think we're probably safe. If you went out and polled the superheros as to what their powers were, I'd say that's OR. But assuming you're taking it from reliable sources, I think we're in the clear. - Philippe | Talk03:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking maybe it could be speedied? Technically it falls under the 'talk' template:'It is a talk page of a page which has been deleted...' HalfShadow03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not really in the habit of deleting user talk pages. For one thing, they serve as a bit of history - although admins can see deleted revisions, a lot of our really splendid vandalfighters can't, and I hate to block that sort of history from them. I can see where it'd be a good idea, though - for right now, I'd prefer to leave it though. - Philippe | Talk03:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good catch. It wasn't Shia - it looks like User:Enzuru started building his/her user page there and then realized it was wrong. It bears a resemblance to the current one. I just deleted it from User:Shia since I'm not sure it's really theirs. If I'm wrong, I'm sure they'll let me know. Good catch on your part! :-) - Philippe | Talk04:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for helping out. Becuase I (probably) suffered the most from that IP address, I,Goodshoped35110s, give you all the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! (yay.) :) --Goodshoped35110s04:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.
The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you blocked this IP address in the past for vandalism. Since then, there have been numerous warnings. Today, the user/IP went through many biography articles and changeed the birthdates. Is there anything you can do, or can you point me in the right direction to have this dealt with? Thanks. GaryColemanFan23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo. The smoke and red flags were popping up everywhere. I found him attacking oxymoron83, tried to revert the edit and put a warning on their page but I saw that this guy was supposedly an admin, with 40'000 edits to wikipedia and only had an edit history of thirteen. Anyway, thank you for blocking him :D AngelOfSadness talk 17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another quick question, should his userpage itself be replaced with an indef block template or should it be deleted as he attempted to impersonate an admin with it? AngelOfSadness talk 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you know, that's a REALLY good point. I think my preference is to revert it back to a "pre-impersonation" version, if there is one. If not, I'll just delete it. - Philippe | Talk18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Icairns, the editor whose userpage was copied by the vandal, has blanked it. There are two other revisions of the page which it can be reverted back to. Revision one says "I am 1337" and revision two is blank. Maybe it might be best left blank, hopefully no-one will revert it. AngelOfSadness talk 19:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think Icairns should get to decide the fate of the page, and if he's comfortable blanking it, I support that totally. - Philippe | Talk22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just seemed to be overlooked. I agree with your comment though, there have been quite a few positive edits from IP's but too much vandalism. - Rjd006022:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted our article on Oct. 5 because of blatant advertising. I was wondering if we could do anything to alter the article to make it not appear that way. If you look on our talk page, the article was deleted before for similar reasons which we cleared up with another admin. Please let us know what we can do.
A while back you deleted List of United States radio markets, claiming it as "blatant copyright infringement". Please see the deletion discussion about a similar list, List of television stations in North America by media market, where consensus decided that such a list does not infringe on copyright, because it is reporting facts about broadcast markets which are common knowledge in the industry and are widely available to the public. Facts cannot be copyrighted, only the specific expression of those facts, and only when that expression involves a modicum of creativity. See Feist v. Rural. In light of this, would you be willing to restore this page? DHowell23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. If you continue to have problems with that, send me an email and I'll see what we can do to get it fixed permanently. - Philippe | Talk03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute........WHAT HAPPENED??!! You should do this on Wikinews, but, seriously, I offer my condolences to you and your five friends on that subject. -Goodshop01:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. The full story is at [32]. All three kids were in my partner's choir, their mother was a friend, and the pilot was our priest. Rough day in Tulsa. - Philippe | Talk02:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Thank you for your help in my RfA. It hammered home a few things I need to keep in mind while admining and passed with a final tally of 40/0/4; two people forgot to vote in time, leaving me short of that exquisite number :-(, but I'll just have to fudge the next vote about me. Adminship feels slightly august but not particularily exalted, so I shall endeavour to consider it a toolkit and make sincere efforts to know what I'm doing before using it. If you later on have something to say or want to ask for --
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable.♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the Cuban sandwich article for a lock but it was declined because the issue was deemed a "content dispute". The thing is, the anonymous user with whom I (and others, btw) have a "dispute" is replacing cited facts with uncited misinformation.
Say a user from New York was repeatedly editing the Boston Red Sox article to state that Yankees won this year's World Series, for example. Would that be a "content dispute", or a clear case of vandalism? This argument is much the same. There is no evidence to support the anonymous user's edits of entry, yet he/she keeps repeating reintroducing the same blatantly false (and reference-free) story about a Miami origin.
If page protection for the article is not a viable option, what course of action would you suggest if this continues?
BTW, it may seem silly to argue over a sandwich, but the Cuban/Tampa origin of this lunch staple is universally known and celebrated in the area. In fact, this dispute was (presumably) the inspiration for a newspaper column in the Tampa Tribune. Zeng8r03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection is generally reserved for wide scale article vandalism, or vandalism involving multiple editors. When there are disputes between single editors, I usually recommend dispute resolution or - in the case of true vandalism - WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Administrators generally try to stay out of content disputes and encourage users to settle those in other methods. I hope that gives you an understanding of my thinking in this case. In a nutshell, I rarely will protect the page when there's vandalism/disruption by a single editor. If we're talking about GROUPS of editors, I'm more likely to protect. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask - I truly want you to understand my reasoning - nothing worse than a vague description! - Philippe | Talk04:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, there is only one person making the argument (and edits) which supports that the sandwich is from Tampa. He's making the edits under his screen name, and an anonymous IP, there's clearly no consensus on the issue here on Wikipedia. It's a poor analogy to compare a televised winner of a baseball game, and the creator of a particular food dish, ESPECIALLY food and drink origins. The sandwich is much like the margarita, plenty of references from various sources claiming different origins. End of the day, there are conflicting reports of the origin, and its not unreasonable to ask someone to include a mention of this when such references do exist. 68.155.121.705:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous person: Facts are facts. You provide no sources for your edits. The item you keep changing has MULTIPLE good, clear, unambiguous sources, including newspaper articles from Tampa, St. Pete, AND Miami plus two published books. The only source I've found (I've looked) for your Miami assertion are wikipedia mirror sites that cached a version of the Cuban sandwich page before incorrect information could be removed. This is not a disputable issue - the knowledgeable sources are unanimous in agreement.
At best, you are removing cited material in favor of incorrect original research, which violates several wikipedia policies. At worst, you are just trying to be a pain in the nether regions, which violates several different wikipedia policies. Why don't you go to the Po-Boy or the Philly Cheesesteak page, remove all references to New Orleans and Philadelphia, and claim they're from Miami. If you're going to try to steal other city's epicurean legacies, might as well go for the gusto...
As for "IP edits": 1) This dispute was in the Tampa Tribune. Though wikipedia was not directly mentioned, a few people apparantly figured it out because the article had already been fixed by others when I got to it. 2) Why don't you register?
Hi Philippe, I see you protected the above article. Could I draw your attension to this determination from the arbitration. In particular to this statement "When possible, mentors should favor article bans over page protection." Dispite the ongoing carry on, there was some productive work also as seen here. While I can understand you reason for protecting the article, I also find it discouraging. Thanks--Domer4814:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I am familiar with the arbitration but wish to point out that I am not, as defined in that same arbitration, a mentor. I am an administrator, responding to a request for page protection because of actions that are happening outside of consensus, that is, while consensus is still being determined. I am not going to suggest an article ban in this case. I stand by my decision to protect, but thank you for your comment. It truly is appreciated. The page protection will last only 24 hours, which should give consensus time to formulate. Surely you can use the time on the talk page to discuss future changes? Protection and further work are not mutually exclusive. - Philippe | Talk16:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although in case you do want to consider article-based bans, may I recommend a close examination of Domer48's conduct in the article Philippe? He is specifically breaching the arbitration's rulings in a number of ways, most particularly their finding of fact that he is a disruptive editor who posts tendentious and misleading edit summaries. Looking back at the history of it, he appears to run campaigns against editors with whom he disagrees and in this case is (absurdly) trying to take the moral high ground with you in what is cleary a profound disinterest in genuine discussion and consensus-building in the article. LiberalViews16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to provide the duff’s to substantiate you accusations, failing that, I would very much appreciate Philippe opening a request for comment on LiberalViews for making scurrilous accusations against me, the reason I’m asking Philippe is because I have never asked for one before, and lack the ability to do so.--Domer4819:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need as I was just confirming your request for article-level bans and quite rightly suggesting you be first for such consideration. LiberalViews19:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I did originally at least. It's pretty clear though that it needs protection as long as you are unwilling to genuinely discuss things and just engage in war games. Keep trying - it doesn't seem to be getting you very far! LiberalViews21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STOP THE MADNESS - I will not - NOT - set up an RFC on anyone on behalf of another user. The instructions for how to do it are on the RFC page. You can check the request for page protection at WP:RFCC. I will NOT be interjected into the madness that surrounds this article, other than simply doing the page protection as requested. - Philippe | Talk22:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A page-ban on Domer48 would be very premature. What we may need, ultimately, is a Hkelker 2 style arbitration remedy, in which anyone who spouts a nationalist point of view is topic-banned. It's draconian, but it works. I hope it doesn't come to that. Mackensen(talk)02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The time is here, and we knew it was coming. November 16 is Oklahoma's centennial, and, as expected, WikiProject Oklahoma's newest featured article will appear on the Main Page. Oklahoma will be the first article produced by WikiProject Oklahoma featured on the Main Page since October 23, 2005, when Black Seminoles was featured. Jim Thorpe has also been featured, coming on August 13, 2004. Though featured articles for the main page are always selected by Raul654, Oklahoma's 100th anniversary makes its main page appearance a near sure thing. As of early November 6, Oklahoma had 14 nods of support, with none in opposition. All are welcome and encouraged to help spruce up the article as much as possible for its main page debut, as well as lend a hand in anti-vandalism efforts on November 16th.
Wikiproject Oklahoma gets a new Wikipedia ad
Thanks to User:Miranda, Wikiproject Oklahoma has joined the ranks of WikiProjects with ads to welcome new editors. On November 5, the ad, in banner form, was completed two days after its request, becoming the 107th Wikipedia ad. The ad, located at Qxz-ad107.gif, can also be seen on WikiProject Oklahoma's project page. Those interested in having the ad on their user pages can add "{{wikipedia ads}}", which displays a random ad picture. An alternative is to simply add the image directly, avoiding unwanted ads.
Over 100 articles added to project
During the month of October, including Novermber 2, 104 new articles were added to WikiProject Oklahoma. November 2 saw 65 articles added to the wikiproject, all by User:SkiersBot, which adds articles to wikiproject corresponding to tags, such as articles with Oklahoma-related stub tags.
This month's task: Anti-vandalism and maintenance efforts for Oklahoma on November 16!
The WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter is a work in progress so please share your ideas about how the newsletter can be improved. If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the sign-up list.
You have received this newsletter because you signed up for it here. If you would like to discontinue receiving this newsletter, please remove your name from the same list. Thanks! Okiefromoklatalk tome06:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for constructive criticism in my recent RFA which did not pass at (18/27/10). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait until someone nominates me next time. Thank you for you comments! Tiptoety00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail05:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.
Thanks. You're very careful. The vandals on en.wikipedia are much worse and much harder to deal with than on de.wikipedia. But much less yelling, swearing and shouting here. --Fromgermany03:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't believe how users get on with each other on de.wikipedia. Even a lot of the sysops are at constant fight with each other. And do not ask about the dirty language they use when they want to tell who's master. I've given up de.wikipedia completely because I can no longer stand this awful tone of voice. No need to tell you that among German linguists and sociologists de.wikipedia has an "evil" reputation and I've seen university professors advising their students to stay away from de.wikipedia for research. :-( I want peace and quiet and that's what I find on en.wikipedia, believe me or not. --Fromgermany11:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym55515:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You turned down my request for semi-protection of the solar enregy page due to significant quality contributions from IPs. Fair enough. I think some of these might have been my own unlogged-in edits. Oh well. How much vandalism does a page need to get to warrant semi-protection? The vandalism lately has been rather clever with minor changes to links and pictures that go unnoticed. I'm sure you know it's a lot of work going back through all this over and over again. Do GA articles get any more rights to protection? Mrshaba16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We protect based on a number of factors (you can read the protection policy at WP:PROTECTION, but generally speaking we try to keep in mind that one of our core values is the idea that we are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - including folks who aren't logged in. Generally speaking, if there are IP edits that are problems and it's from a couple of individual IPs, it makes sense to warn them, and eventually to report them to WP:AIV. Admins tend to be really reticent to semi-protect a page where anons are making productive edits, because it can be very frustrating for those good users.
I absolutely understand your frustration in having to consistently revert an article to remove vandalism. I'll add it to my watchlist as well, and hopefully some other admins that I know watch this page will do the same.
If, however, there's an outbreak of vandalism from a wide range of IPS, with multiple occurences per day, then we'd look at page protection. Anything else we prefer to deal with individually. I hope that makes sense - if not, please feel free to ask me to clarify. Thanks for your interest, and your work on the encyclopedia. - Philippe | Talk19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have issued a "final warning" to User:84.109.51.71. Please note that I have reported this IP previously for abusive sockpuppet vandalism.[34] At the time, Feezo refused to take any action, on the grounds that the IP seemed to have only one abusive edit. [35] The other subsequent edits from this IP seem to be related POV vandalism, and I request that you reconsider. For background, please look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Runtshit and the 300 plus abusive sockpuppets established by this vandal. If we can block one of the IPs from which s/he is editing, this will help stem this persistent vandalism.
When reporting someone for sockpuppet based vandalism, it's best to assume that the admin handling it knows NOTHING about the sockmaster in question. Most of us know a whole lot about a few of them, and very little about the rest. So, a reports such as yours - no details, no editing comparisons, nothing to help us gauge whether or not the account/IP in question really IS a sock - is likely to not achieve the results that you want. If you can give us something to work with: edit patterns, etc, then we're far more likely to be able to take an appropriate action. I'll look into it farther, but can't at this very moment, as I need to leave for a bit.
The other thing you might want to keep in mind is that WP:AIV is for BLATANT vandalism - anything that requires in depth investigation is probably best handled at WP:ANI, but that's just a general rule of thumb. Most of us will, of course, take action on any valid report, wherever it comes in.
So, in short - yes, I'll reconsider and look further since you've provided more info for me to go on - but I can't do it immediately. If you need someone more quickly, I'd suggest listing it at WP:ANI. Thanks for following up, and a sincere thanks for your work on the encyclopedia. - Philippe | Talk20:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I thought that the Runtshit vandal was so well established that it was unnecessary to give further details. Basically, this is a right-wing Zionist who is stalking me, making edits abusing me personally on articles I have recently edited, and on articles relating to the Middle East (particularly the Israeli left) and on left-wing politics. This character averages at least one attack a day. and to date has made more than 1300 abusive edits on nearly 300 different articles. Dozens of editors and admins have been involved in this so far, and it is hardly necessary to repeat the history each time I make a report. RolandR21:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Peeps, it's that time of the month again (no not that time — get your mind out of the gutter): time for another monthly edition of the LGBT Project'sLove Boat newsletter from your cruise directorMiss Julie. So much has been happening this month and I just can't wait to tell you all about it!!!
Let's start with some good news: Alice and the project lost the bothersome sock puppet who had been disrupting many articles we monitor, and now most of us can edit in relative peace. Congratulations, Alice, for being able to come out of semi-retirement. Benjiboi, on the other hand, has gained an anonymous IP stalker who seems to be more Catholic than the Pope and who has a hard-on for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. We seem to have a sort of Yin and Yang thing going on here, which helps both to keep us in balance and on our toes <bright smiles all around>.
Albus Dumbledore got outed this month, and was immediately adopted by our project. The international brouhaha surrounding this disclosure reached all the way to Wikiland, and his article was briefly locked due to homophobic vandalism (as well as well meaning editors who just couldn't believe that that nice man could possibly be gay). This is a wonderful article to add to your watchlist, and will surely give you hours of reverting fun on cold winter days.
On a more serious note, Fireplace has suggested a new article series about LGBT rights in the United States, state by state. This ambitious topic will surely require many editors and a lot of research, but has the potential to add further prestige to our already prestigious project.
Francis Bacon (not the new gay one, but the old gay one ... though they're actually both dead, now that I think about it) has also aroused passions here on Wikipedia, with editors opposing his sexuality being disclosed in his biography. The always helpful Haiduc has thoughtfully provided any number of sources, but it is slow going getting his point across. Anyone want to lend a hand?
And speaking of passions, Jack Kerouac has inflamed the senses once again with editors, including administrator Irishguy, mounting a spirited defense to keep him as heterosexual as possible for Wikipedia purposes. Why? I don't know. Perhaps some of you can drop by the talk page and ask your questions there. I feel certain a stimulating debate will ensue that will be enjoyed by all.
Did you know that one of our Featured articles, Lawrence v. Texas, lost its shiny gold star? That was a shocker. It has been suggested that we turn our attention to it in an effort to restore it to its former glory. I took a peek, and it does need our help badly. For our American editors, it would seem almost a civic duty to edit it (not that I'm hinting....).
Though it was far too intellectual a debate for a mere cruise director like myself to take part in, Intersexuality was certainly a hot topic a week or two ago. The thrust of the debate was over inclusion in our project. Lots of good editors had lots of good opinions. For those too lazy to check out the discussion, we decided to leave it out for now.
Peer review is, as always, short staffed and seemingly unloved. Wouldn't you feel better about yourself and the world in general if you took a few minutes to read one of the listed articles and offer some helpful advice? I know I'd feel better if you did.
The article LGBT movements in the United States certainly raised eyebrows last week, especially when it was discovered that copyrighted content had been added to our article. Tragedy was averted at the last minute, though, when the original hosts of the article where the material had been pilfered agreed to make it free to everyone. Our thanks to them, whoever they are. Busy Bee that I am, I haven't had time to read it, but I'm sure it's sensational.
Not content to run for Best Actress, plucky Bannon won a Best supporting actress Oscar... whoops, I meant to say Ann is also getting more than her share of womanly attention on the Good Article list. Joining her on this exalted plane are Freddy Mercury, Waylon Smithers and Lance Bass. Good articles indeed, and the last one mentioned just goes to show that one needn't admire the subject of an article to appreciate the effort put into making him worthwhile reading. What on earth Britney ever saw in him I'll never know. Truly a riddle cloaked in an enigma and wrapped around a puzzle.
On a personal note, your already overworked cruise director is being cyberly whipped almost daily by Nemissimo, who desperately wants to get the German BDSM translation copy edited and used as a replacement for the current one. It's such a ... err, stimulating topic that I am sure many of you will want to join the copy editing fun. Jump right in, folks! It's so lonely copy editing it all by my lonesome!
A little birdie just whispered in my ear that our noble collaboration project was delisted from the Community Portal due to inactivity. When asked how this scandalous turn of events could have occurred, the answer I received was "we suck at stuff like that". Well. In the first place, I disagree that sucking should be considered a negative, but to each his or her own. In the second place, I have full confidence that we can and will collaborate with other projects in the future. So let's not view this as a setback (even though it is), but rather a challenge to improve (and good Lord, I sound almost Wikipedian!).
Lastly, the holidays are rapidly approaching. Our American cousins are currently getting ready to slaughter masses of poultry in an effort to show their gratitude and generally peaceful demeanor, and those of the Canadian persuasion, trendsetters that they are, celebrated a bit early this year. I'm sure all us foreigners will join together in wishing them all a very happy Thanksgiving on their respective holidays, both already celebrated and forthcoming... though I would hope somebody would enlighten me as to why they don't celebrate it on the same day. I was awake all last night trying to figure that one out.
In the spirit of this peculiarly North American holiday, let me take a moment to thank all of our editors for their contributions to this project. It's people like you who make people like me...well, a "people person"! May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your Love Boat never turn into a Poseidon.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.
Hi - I left that one because it made me a little nervous and I wanted an admin w/more naming experience than I to make the call. My gut feeling is that, if anything, "Village School" should probably be a disambig page, but I have nothing - zero - to back that up. Since I didn't know the convention on that one, I decided to leave it, rather than make the wrong call and have to go through the madness of fixing it. So, in short: I don't know if it can be changed, but I'm not comfortable making that particular change myself. I'm sorry, I know that's not a very satisfying (if somewhat vague) answer. - Philippe | Talk00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry to butt in, was tracking what happened with the request). Thanks for the temp semi. It was getting irritating reverting creepy slurs off the page. I do have a question: is there a "bright line" rule for when repeated vandalism warrants a request to protect? I get "it should be more than 5% because that's what every article gets", and "it can be less than 50% because almost no article gets 50%". Is it a simple number? I don't want to waste admin time on requests that won't go anywhere. --- tqbf01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi tqbf - that's a good question. The answer is "not really". I think most admin (myself included) have our own personal standards, but there's nothing really codified, and a lot of it depends on other factors (likelihood of continuance, nature of the attacks, is it BLP, is it a single vandal or set of vandals, etc). There are a few other admins that monitor my talk page and I'd be curious what they use as a "line in the sand", but in my case, for simple vandalism that's ongoing consistently, my general (though not hard and fast) rule is that I like to see several days with multiple (usually 3 or more) vandalisms per day. If it's one day, it better be a pretty intense level of vandalism and from disparate accounts or IPs. Good question, and I'm sorry I couldn't give a more definite answer. - Philippe | Talk02:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wokay. That's helpful. I'm not a committed vandalfighter, just fixing stuff where I see it, and I want to make sure I'm not getting in the way of people who are more serious about policing WP. Thanks for the response! --- tqbf03:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain why you moved this page from its former name before allowing adequate time for discussion? If you take a look at the article's talk page, you will find evidence that the move may be incorrect. Let's see what the Wikipedia community says. Truthanado (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it because it was listed as on the requested moves page as uncontroversial, and there was no opposition at the time I looked; there was also supporting documentation listed. Since it's clearly not uncontroversial, I have no objection to it being moved back (or the discussion simply continued, at which time we can re-evaluate). - Philippe | Talk00:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the number of links to Northport High School that now need to go through a redirect, plus the evidence that the name should not have changed, I would like to suggest that the page be moved back to its previous name. What do you think? If you agree, could you please do the move. Or, we can wait a while and see what develops. Your choice. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the deal breaker is the fact that the school's own website doesn't use the word "senior". I've moved it back until discussion has come to consensus. - Philippe | Talk02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An abundance of information does NOT equal "context." This article could have been speedied for any number of criteria. I chose context. It also appears to be linkspam, designed to promote the company linked in the article. It is also not notable. It also appears to be cut and pasted from somewhere else (a clear copyright vio), per the "figure 1" language, when no "figure 1" exists. I can't find the source of the copyright vio right now, or I'd tag it again. Please reexamine this, after fully reading this "article." Mr Which???04:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read the article, and I stand by my original decision, though invite you to take it to AfD. By "Figure 1", I believe they mean the link - which is, of course, labeled [1]. I don't think it's link-spam based on a single link. I'm sorry that we disagree on this one. - Philippe | Talk05:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither the time, nor the inclination to go through the pain that is AfD. I have only tagged those articles that I view as uncontroversial speedies. That you somehow read that article and found both notability and context (again, abundance of info doesn't equal "context") is disconcerting to me. I simply don't understand how you can hold that view on the mess that is that article. Where's the notability? How has the author put it in anything like a relevant context to non-technicians in the field? Mr Which???05:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll notice that the article has already had one user work on cleanup. We don't require notability for everything: remember, notability applies to companies, people, bands, etc - not necessarily to terms, industries, or equipment that is trade-specific. I'm sorry, I simply don't believe this qualifies for speedy deletion. Whether it would survive AfD is another matter, but it doesn't qualify on any of our speedy deletion reasons, at least in my reading. I think if you review my work you'll see that I tend to be one of the most aggressive deletionists we have, and I don't see it here, I'm sorry. - Philippe | Talk05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've removed the link and the last couple of paragraphs - I agree they were both unneeded and self-promoting (I've put a note about this on the authors talk page). However, I believe that the article should remain (I might put some work into it, or at least clean it up a bit more) as it does seem to be a useful part of a RF communication system. Blair - Speak to me05:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx2)Your record is exactly why I was stunned that you somehow found that this article had established a context relevant to non-technicians. Oh well. Live and learn, I guess. Regards, Mr Which???05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about why you think things in the encyclopedia should only be relevant to non-technicians? We have a number of highly technical articles here - I can't make head or tails of most of the virus or biology ones, for instance... this may be the root of the question, actually. - Philippe | Talk05:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression (I don't have the policy right at my fingertips) that there was some policy regarding context relevant to non-technicians. Perhaps I was mistaken. As for my edits to that article, if we're keeping the thing (against what I think should happen, of course), it might as well look decent. :) Mr Which???05:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I copied this from a message I left for GRBerry, because I also respect your opinion, and also because GRB seems to have gone offline, and I'd like a quick opinion on my actions here.
In my opinion, CitiCat prematurely closed discussion on the AfD for Bruce Khlebnikov, and I boldly reverted the close almost immediately. As I respect your opinion, I wanted your take on if I should have applied WP:IAR in this case. I fully understand that the IAR policy is not meant to create anarchy, but to improve the project, and my question for you is: in your opinion, did my bold move in this case, accomplish what the spirit of IAR actually is? Thanks, Mr Which???04:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was my first really bold action, since ... well ... without giving too much away, let's just say I'm not an inexperienced editor. I have many more edits behind me than my visible count would seem to imply. Anyways, I'm just trying to get my sea-legs under me at AfD, RC, and Dead-end/Orphan, so any input you have for me would be nice. Regards, Mr Which???05:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. Here's hoping civility wins out everywhere ;) All the best, ~Eliz81(C)21:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe. You rescently deleted an article "Footed Pajamas" with reason statiting that it was "blatant" advertising. That is not the case. Nor was any bot-software used to publish it. The article is almost identical to the one for Dr. Denton or Carter's, Inc. which is another "brand" of sleeper pajamas. I would appreciate your suggestions or input on this.
I'll respond to this on your talk as well. I moved it because my understanding of [[WP:NAME] is that we frankly don't care how they spell it themselves. For instance, k.d.lang would be capitalized (to K.D. Lang), based on our manual of style. The same is true here. We meet our consistency rules, not their trademark desires. I will not move it back immediately, to give you time to find me another reference that demonstrates that I'm incorrect - which is always possible - and if so we can rediscuss. Otherwise, I'm moving it back. - Philippe | Talk15:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been helping a new user Aaleksanyants who created some articles and then changed the articles' names by creating new articles. He would now like to delete the old versions of the articles, I think. Below is what he put on my talk page. I suggested he ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Since I'm not an admin, I'm not sure how to further help. Could you help this user please? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following is text that the user added to my talk page:
Hi again and thank you for adding categories to my previously submitted articles. One more question: how do I delete articles after changing all the links to take to new location? Initially the article was called "Po sledam Briminskih Muzykantof" that was not correct and I have corrected its name according to IMDB item, see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251333/ , also I have changed all the links in other articles to take to new location, therefore the old page is no longer required and should be deleted.
Here is what I found regarding article deletion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy :
Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from view. Unlike page blanking, which can be performed (or reverted) by any user, deletion can be performed only by administrators. Administrators can also view deleted pages and reverse ("undelete") any deletion.
So, as long as I am not an administrator, I cannot delete those typo named pages that are not linked from anywhere else! Therefore i have to ask for deletion someone esle, e.g. YOU :-) So please, delete the following pages as they are not linked from anywhere:
Po sledam Briminskih Muzykantof and Po sledam bremenskih muzykantov, as the right syntax should be Po sledam bremenskikh muzykantov as given in IMDB.
Hello, Philippe. Thank you very much for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you spot me messing things up, please feel free to shout at me :) Have a super day! ~ Yours faithfully, PeaceNT 11:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
_-_Not_Too_Much_To_Carry_(1895).jpg)
BrokenSphereMsg me 22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
_-_The_Bunch_Of_Grapes_(1868).jpg)
How about some pop instead? -Jéské(v^_^v) 04:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
