User talk:Philippe/Archive2

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Messages for December, 2007

Please leave messages at the bottom of the page. - Philippe | Talk 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol

I recently wrote this article, which was tagged for speedy deletion for notability. I think it should be agreed upon that the largest organization of paramilitary volunteers saving our lives everyday is notable, but if this needs to actually be stated in the article, I can do that. More notably, most of our other Wings have articles posted that are not tagged for deletion, that have existed for quite some time. If President Truman thought we were worthy of congressional attention, I think we're worthy of encyclopedic attention. The page did not need major editing, and I don't believe it met the criteria for speedy deletion. Also, no comments relating to the reason the article was tagged were posted on the article's discussion page, nor any marks left as to who tagged the article. It was simply deleted when I checked today, 24 hours after the article was written.

Anyway, do you have an copy of the article as it was before deletion so that I can modify it? It was deleted prior to the required time that is mandatory so that a 'hangon' tag can be appended, so I could not fix the article.

No need to cross-post, I'll check back here. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia safe. Codharris (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there - I've userfied the article for you - you can find a copy of it at User:Codharris/CAP. If I were you, I'd be sure to include evidence of notability - the President Truman reference caught my attention, for instance - and make sure that it's included. If you want to work on it in your userspace and then let me know when you're ready to move it back to article space, I'd be glad to take a look at it for you and then make the move. - Philippe | Talk 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. I'd tell you to put in for a raise, but.... 64.252.11.30 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Final Warning.

You Wrote: This will be your final warning about your use of edit summaries. You may not tell someone that they are writing like a two-year-old. [3] It's incivil. Further, you may not tell someone to stop posting [4] - that is not within your purview. I strongly suggest that you reconsider the tone of your edit summaries and on-wiki interactions. You have been previously blocked for this - I would think you'd have learned from that. Further, you were asked by an unblocking admin (above) to avoid a particular talk page, and you have not done that. Any questions may be directed to me at my talk page.

My reply: That guy is Komodo lover, he is NOT allowed to post ANYTHING on Wikipedia, as he is a sockpuppet. Besides, I'm not the only one telling him to stop writing like that, so stop picking on me. What you're saying is that Komodo lover IS allowed to vandalise and that I am NOT allowed to do what everyone ELSE is doing to him...that is so unfair. CBFan (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Philippe,
I'd like to thank you for the declining request for speedy deletion of this image . --Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mbz1 - you're quite welcome. I'm glad I could help.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Thank you for semi-protecting my userpage, but he only sporadically vandalizes my page and one day of semi-protection wouldn't do very much if any help. Please semi-protect it indefinitely. 'FLaRN'(talk) 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk. Indefinite semi-protection is not the answer. - Philippe | Talk 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Feathers & Fools

Why would you delete my article Feathers & Fools, even after I changed it into stub! Warrior4321 03:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that page because it did not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for books. Please review them, and then - if you still wish to create that page - create it in a sandbox page in your userspace. At that time, I'd be happy to review it for you and, if appropriate, move it back into the mainspace. - Philippe | Talk 03:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rob Honeycutt

Just an FYI on Rob Honeycutt. I had posted a reason why the article should be kept on the talk page. I was in the midst on editing the page when you deleted it from under me. Next time before you speedy a pge, could you at leats answer the comments on the talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I did, in fact, read the talk page comment. You may wish to review Wikipedia's notability requirements for inclusion. Recreating deleted material is generally a bad idea - it's almost an automatic re-delete. I would recommend that you draft the article in a sandbox page and then let an admin (myself or any other) to glance at it and make sure it meets notability requirements before moving it back into the mainspace. The article as it recently existed (I deleted it again) did not meet those standards. - Philippe | Talk 04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't much recreate it as save what i was working on when you deleted it. Anyway ... --evrik ^(talk) 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rob Honeycutt. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --evrik ^(talk) 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment User:Halomark went and recreated the page. --evrik ^(talk) 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have posted on the DRV. Thanks for your work on-wiki, I'm sorry that we disagree about this one. - Philippe | Talk 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question concerning deleted articles (speedy deleted)

Hi,

when I tagged Bachelor of Pharmacy (Hons) in Chinese Medicine and Bachelor of Chinese Medicine and Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Biomedical Science for speedy deletion because of CSD G12, I provided links to the website from which the content was copied. The same author who created these articles, posted the same content on Faculty of Chinese Medicine of Hong Kong Baptist University. I'm about to remove the copyvio text from there, but I need the links to the website from which the content was copied. For some reason, I can't find the links anymore on the net. Are you able to post the links on my talk page so I can justify my reasoning for the removal of the copyvio content on Faculty of Chinese Medicine of Hong Kong Baptist University?

Hope you can help.

Regards

User Doe _☻T ^☼C 04:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind, I found it :-). Good night User Doe _☻T ^☼C 04:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, sorry, I had stepped away. I'm glad you were able to find it. :-) - Philippe | Talk 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

volumen cero

don't forget to delete the talk page! --Rocksanddirt 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for the (well-timed) reminder! It's done. - Philippe | Talk 06:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hymn Society... thanks

Philippe: The CorenSearchBot rather quickly (and to my mind a little strongly and zealously) pounced on a new article Hymn Society of Great Britain and Ireland that I was setting up. Your spotting of this, and giving some breathing space alongside is much appreciated. Thanks. Feline Hymnic 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 09:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Haley Industries

Hello there, I'm trying to help a new editor write an article on this subject that won't get deleted: he's posted it three times now and I can quite see why it was tagged for speedy deletion. On the other hand, he's not a vandal and I'd like to encourage him. Could you possibly post the text of his original article, which you deleted on 1 December, to his talk page? I'll then help him try and write a reasonable article with sources, wikification etc. Thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kim - It looks like Dave already did it. I'd be happy to lend any more assistance that you might need. You might consider working with the user in a user sandbox page to work on it, and then let me know and I'll be happy to offer an opinion about whether it would survive a speedy delete. :-) - Philippe | Talk 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Philippe, seen that from Dave. I've already suggested userfying it to the editor, but if I can help him get at least one citation in there in the next day or so maybe it will survive in mainspace. Either way, thanks for the help. I don't think this user is a vandal, just a little impatient. At least it makes a change from new articles that say "Brent smith is soooo gay ROFL!" Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, this user looks like a good guy who's just not sure how to navigate the sometimes tricky paths of Wikipedia. Thanks for giving him a hand. - Philippe | Talk 23:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm amused by his suggestion that I'm acting out of nationalism. Someone ought to tell him that I spend a great deal of time in Canada, and that my ancestors were one of the founding families of Montreal. :-) - Philippe | Talk 23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, I have made some improvements to this article which you recently commented on. I'm posting to the talk pages of all editors who have been interested here, in case you have any further comments or suggestions. I believe the article is just about OK to stand on its own and meet the criteria for notability but if you have any suggestions please leave them on the talk page. Thank you! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

George Washington's Revenge

Hello. I am relatively new to wikipedia. You deleted the article I wrote about the band "George Washington's Revenge" because it "didn't say why it was significant." I didn't have a copy of the text and all the coding I used, so if you could get me a copy of that through my talk page so I can fix it up, that would be greatly appreciated. There are plenty of articles on bands, and our band is important enough to have an article on wikipedia and would greatly add to and help define your "folk punk" page, since the genre is a growing one. We are the first folk-punk band from our area/NJ and the first to use a trombone in this style of music. We are very significant to the genre because we have added to it in this way. Folk-punk usually does not involve horns, etc. What could be more significant? Please reconsider the article and, again, it would be great if you could put a copy of the text/coding in my talk page for me to revise. Also- just because I write/include that- will that avoid the speedy delete? How would I/what do I need to do to avoid the speedy-delete? Thanks very much for your time. My username is christinaxlouise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christinaxlouise (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, check your talk page for more details. :-) - Philippe | Talk 22:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you!

...for the unexpected barnstar. What a pleasant surprise, I really appreciate it. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 23:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Gohuskersosborne

I'm sorry, but this ain't just about a "content dispute". This is about insulting and unwillingness to rather discuss this matter instead of vandalizing and reverting again and again. I hope you give this a second thought, or at least write your oppinion on Template talk:HuskersCoach. ––Bender235 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He has previously been blocked for civility, and my best guess is that the block was for exactly the first diff you cite. I won't block again- this whole thing is a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. I strongly - strongly - recommend Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. - Philippe | Talk 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re. User:CobraGeek

It's alright with me. Best regards, Húsönd 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. :-) - Philippe | Talk 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting pretty sick of this CobraGeek character. They have identified themselves as a Clemson University fan in the WikiProject College Football list and if you check their contribs I think it's quite clear there is an anti-USC agenda at work here. Clearly a user who regularly violates NPOV policy and no longer deserves the benefit of the good faith rule. I will be watching this users edits at all USC-related articles and will remove material that has obvious POV problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.37.65 (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Christ Church Deer Park

Allow me to register my chagrin that Christ Church Deer Park was speedily deleted in the middle of the night without my knowledge. I awoke to a message informing me that I could contest the nomination, accompanied by an already-red link to the article. Perhaps not the best form. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Carolyn - I'm sorry you're frustrated. The speedy deletion templates are meant to be exactly that: speedy. In this case, it was tagged and then deleted about an hour and a half later, which is actually fairly slow for those. They're meant for articles that incontrovertibly fail our requirements, in this case notability. I'd be happy to put it on a separate page in your userspace for you, and then once you have satisfied the notability requirements I could take a look at it and move it back into the encyclopedia for you, if you'd like. I'm sorry you are dissatisfied with the speed of the process. - Philippe | Talk 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keli Price

Dear Philippe, I'm sorry for the copyright on Keli Price, Now I learned most of the Wiki Guidelines and policies.
I found a reliable source from [1] and [2] about him and I was wondering if you could unblock that article from being created so I could create it without copyright. Thanx! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for blocking the latest reincarnation of Iamandrewrice. Frankly I'm done assuming good faith once everyone else have given up. This has backfired horribly and only resulted in him continuing to post on my talk page. I wish I had never encountered this user on newpage patrol. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's a persistent little devil, isn't he? Let me know next time you see him, I'll take care of him again. I have no patience for that type. - Philippe | Talk 18:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

I hope this satisfies your concerns. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It does, thank you. I had just posted a question to your talk about it, and have removed it as well. - Philippe | Talk 20:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Agents of the Law

Please explain to me how the page did not "assert the importance or significance of the subject". Thanks. ZombieSlayer54 (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me how it does? - Philippe | Talk 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Keli Price

Dear Philippe, I'm ready for you to check out the sandbox User:AnnieTigerChucky/KeliPrice.AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better, thank you. I've moved it out into the main encyclopedia namespace, where the community will, no doubt, edit it mercilessly. It may not survive an articles for deletion nomination, but it's WAY better than it was. Thanks for your hard work on it! - Philippe | Talk 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Philippe; you're very kind. Hey, I've been trying to show ATC how to avoid WP:OVERLINKing, so I'm curious about the wikify link? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yanno, wikify probably wasn't the best choice there. I was going for a tone cleanup, and should have used a different one. You're quite right to point that out. I'll fix it. Thanks for calling my attention to it! - Philippe | Talk 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fire Island

Thanks for removing the speedy deletion. Just because someone isn't a fan or doesn't know the music, doesn't mean the group is not notable. Mister ricochet (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Leland Mitchell

Uh, hi. I was working on Leland Mitchell when you deleted it. I applied a hang-on tag; did you see it? Zagalejo^^^ 03:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, looks like you applied it at the exact same moment I deleted it. I've restored it to let you continue to work on it.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 03:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know this passes WP:N; I just have to collect the information. Zagalejo^^^ 03:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'll decline the speedy for now and prod it, if that works for you. - Philippe | Talk 03:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is good enough now. Gimmetrow has removed the prod tag. I've done the best I can do with the sources I can access. There are more newspaper articles available in the Google News Archives, but, unfortunately, I can't view most of them. Zagalejo^^^ 04:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hey i had a hangon tag and my page was still deleted... i was working on making it more notable... can you bring it back? TheOkayThrill (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't make a page more notable - the notability refers to the subject. Can you let me know which page you're dealing with particularly? I deal with thousands of pages each month. - Philippe | Talk 04:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what i mean.. i was trying to show it's notability... the page was The Okay Thrill TheOkayThrill (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. :-) - Philippe | Talk 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We've been mentioned in The Pitch multiple times.. that's a really good newspaper TheOkayThrill (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Well if you won't bring it back for good will you at least bring it back for a few minutes so i can copy the codes from it? i'd really like to keep it for the future or try it on other websites TheOkayThrill (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll refer you again to the series of ways to demonstrate notability at WP:BAND - there's a list of 9 or 10 of them there. Being mentioned in a hometown newspaper doesn't really cut it, unfortunately. We need non-trivial coverage from several sources. I'll also refer you to WP:COI and suggest that it may be inappropriate for you to be creating this page. To do so, in this case, may constitute advertising. Best idea: wait until someone else writes the article and can demonstrate with multiple sources how your band is notable. If you'd like to draft another version in a sandbox page (like this one) - where I've copied the code from the deleted page - and then ask me to review it, I'll do so, but I really believe your band is not yet notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - Philippe | Talk 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

will that page stay there or eventually get deleted? TheOkayThrill (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Since it's in your personal user space - not in the main encyclopedia, and so wouldn't appear in searches - it would tend to stay longer. Eventually, it'll most likely be deleted though. - Philippe | Talk 04:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted for blatant advertising?

It was neither written in a persuasive manner nor was it unnotable.--eskimospy (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no assertion of notability contained therein. Please see WP:CORP for more details on notable companies. - Philippe | Talk 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions - Quixote winery

Will you kindly restore Quixote Winery? It was a bad deletion of a well written article of a notable subject and in no way could possibly be considered "blatant advertising." If you wish you may list it on AfD. I am concerned about your deletions overall. You should probably take a short break from deleting articles while you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's deletion policies, and make sure you are acting with consensus. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see your deletions have caused some disruption. I'll ask you to stop for a while, and be more careful in the future. Wikidemo (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. As with most admins, there will be some controversial deletions. However, I think if you look at the percentage of questionable deletions to total number done, you'll see that I'm well in line with most and significantly better than some. Comments such as yours, based upon a cursory review of a user talk page, are the sort of thing that scare many admins out of doing deletions. Admins who do more deletions get more questions about those deletions. However, if you read the questions on this page you'll see that most of the deletions were well in line with policy, and those that are questionable I have willingly worked with the authors. I have restored Quixote Winery. I still believe it is advertising for a micro-winery, but the connection to Stags Leap is undeniable. You can always request a deletion review as well. - Philippe | Talk 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your restoring that article, and thanks for the response. My review was more than cursory - I checked perhaps 25 of the most recent 100 deletions from your log. I appreciate that you have worked with some authors who ask, but others do not ever ask. The articles are there for the benefit of the encyclopedia and the world as a whole, not just the author. The majority of the articles you deleted should have been deleted, but the error rate still appears to be fairly high for out-of-process deletions. You've deleted some stable well written articles without leaving a tag, and deleted others despite a hangon tag. A number of the things you have deleted under A7 are notable (e.g. the timbuk2 founder bio, which you deleted twice), not just containing assertions of notability. One particular concern is your calling articles about people, things, and companies blatant advertising under G11. The Quixote article was created by someone who seems to be a firm, something I did not know when I edited it. However, I did edit it a while ago to improve the tone and coverage. A creator's conflict of interest does not make the article itself advertising. I have never been to Quixote, met any of the people involved, or tasted their wine. I have no reason to promote them over any other winery. It is simply an interesting, unique business, and such businesses are an important part of the history and culture of the multi-billion dollar Napa Valley wine industry. As an editor I have added or made significant contributions to 100+ articles. Why the heck would I be advertising a micro-winery? When a major architecture critic calls a surrealist building without any right angles, a noted architect's only commission in the US, "unique," it is fair to say the building is "unique." When a company makes certain products, an article about that company can say it does. Sometimes one says wine is "high quality" rather than using the highest technical classification (which is still too low), "super-premium". Perhaps you are just going too fast - at times you seem to delete multiple articles every minute. You might consider using google, checking the sources, letting the tags sit a few days, and using AFD rather than speedy when it's not a clear case.Wikidemo (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts and assure you that I will honestly consider them. Thanks for taking the time to spell out your concerns. - Philippe | Talk 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for being so thoughtful and level-headed. Sorry if my earlier comments were brusque. I looked into the 707 pr agency thing further (which I didn't know about before) and I see that we do have some kind of problem. I've offered on that account's talk page to help rehabilitate any articles they wrote for their clients that are salvageable but conflicted or otherwise tainted. Wikidemo (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Diggers Rest, Victoria

Did you take a look at the history of the article before refusing my request? This is a consistent vandal, using a range of IP addresses, making the smae changes. S/he was warned and continued and then had the hide to accuse me of vandalism. See here for an earlier example. It is rather tiresome to report these things and then be ignored. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that at WP:AIV, we deal only with blatant issues of vandalism by a single account that has received a set of warnings. In this case it's a little more complex, and probably should go to WP:AN/I, where you can spell out the history of IP jumping, etc. I'm sorry, I should have explained that when I declined the block request. - Philippe | Talk 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Note

Tulsa, Oklahoma (where I live) has been hit by a significant ice-storm. Of the roughly 300,000 electrical customers in Tulsa, about 208,000 are out of power. I'm one of them. We took fairly significant damage, so the power company is telling me that it may be a week to 10 days before I'm back online. Administrators should feel free to revert any edits or blocks of mine at their discretion. - Philippe | Talk 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cristian Fleming

The page has been marked for deletion. If it has more votes by users to delete it, does that mean it will definitely be deleted? I believe the sources I've added (an corrected) are adequate, but would appreciate your input on the article, since you asserted its notability in the past. Any guidance would be appreciated. Omotorwayo (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey I appreciate your voting to keep the page even though everyone else was very against me, very much so without doing any of their homework on the subject. It's unfortunate that I don't have more concrete sources to prove the artist's propularity, and I understand why the page had to get deleted, but I really do appreciate your sticking up for me even though everyone else was busy posting very annoying things about the artist. It boggles my mind that you and another administrator voted to keep the page but it then got deleted regardless, mostly because a third admin decided that he thought the page wasn't worthy. It's fine though. I'll have to find more data to back up the info., if I want to re-add the article. Of course, I'm feeling kind of drained about the whole thing, it's obnoxious to me that I have to go beyond the proof that I already felt was sufficient. But thanks again, if I could give you a reasonable person star, I would! Omotorwayo (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Will you please nomatine me to become a adminstor please, i can not figure out how you nomatine your self, and you are a trusty user, please help--Iceglass (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm thrilled that you're willing to consider serving the community as an admin, however I should let you know that I don't generally nominate people who don't have a couple of thousand edits under their belt. May I suggest that you and I keep in contact and discuss it at a later date? - Philippe | Talk 02:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Baltica (computer)

Please undelete Baltica (computer) as it was incorrectly tagged as a copyvio. // Liftarn (talk)

There has been no content on that page since 20 December. However, I'm happy to allow the page to be recreated. It's not salted, so it should be no problem. - Philippe | Talk 05:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But undelete the version with content. Oh, well it's back to checking the cached version at Google if it's still there. // Liftarn (talk)

MathPlayer

Hi, I wonder if you could consider un-deleting MathPlayer. As far as I know its one of only two plugins which enable MathML to be viewed in Internet Explorer which would make it notable. See Putting mathematics on the Web with MathML --Salix alba (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. It's done. Thanks! - Philippe | Talk 16:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've added a reference to may help to establish its notability. --Salix alba (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Olga Erteszek

It wasn't a notability tag, it was a spam tag - I think it's written like an ad. Another article by the same author (I think it was a duplicate) with a different name was deleted for sounding like an ad too. -- Mentifisto 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than deleting an article with a spammy voice about a notable company, I firmly believe that the best thing to do is to clean it up and take it out of the spammy voice. We have a ton of wiki-gnomes who love to do that sort of thing... - Philippe | Talk 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

McGill block

Thanks. User:Snowfire51 had been trying to get the anon IP to engage in a dialogue, to no avail. I left him a comment on his talk page, passing on your suggestion re dispute resolution. Hopefully that will yield results. Thanks again, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help, and best of luck to you. :-) - Philippe | Talk 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How odd... now this editor, who hasn't edited since June of 2007, pops up to make the same revert to the McGill University article. I suppose it doesn't matter if he is the anon IP, since he wasn't blocked anyway, but would it be appropriate to find out? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does smell like a sockpuppet, doesn't it? Let me think about this - it seems to me an odd thing to get into a content edit war over, and particularly to keep sockpuppets sitting around for. I may need to fully protect the article for a while, but I'd like to take some time this afternoon to read the talk page in depth rather than the quick scan I gave it when I sprotected the page. I'll get back to you.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 14:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's confirmed. User:Editorhwaller is either a meat puppet or sock puppet of the anon IP. (Upon consideration, I think it's the latter: the claim of being part of a group of social psychologists sounds patently juvenile and half-baked). Please see the comments at the end of my Talk page. Where do we go from here? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Shawn, I think the editor is a sockpuppet, and wasting everyone's time. In addition to puppetry, he is also admittedly guilty of WP:POINT. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet here is really Shawn. His friend, Snowfire, is now using him to take up his cause over a single sentence edit in the McGill article that is undoubtedly fair, objective, fully documented and appropriate.

I participated in the dialogue not because I am any one's puppet, but because (1) there was an invitation to seek consensus on the part of Snowfire; and (2) because I see that Snowfire, with Shawn's help, is trying to impose his editorial views on others like my colleague, even if there is no clear policy consensus concerning rankings in the lead paragraph. They want to pretend that Shawn + Snowfire = Wikipedia Consensus.

Please see my reply in Shawn's Talk page. He and Snowfire do not respond to any of the questions. Instead, as sockpuppets, they choose to brand me as one of them. Let us be fair to one and all. Let us not allow one editor to impose his views of what is correct or fair editing when some Wikipedia policies are blurred or fall into grey areas.

Many thanks.

Editorhwaller (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page you stated that you are part of a group of social psychologists and that "You, Mr. Snowfire and your other friends as well as the Wikipedia administrator/s act as the "laboratory" subjects for ourstudy." Do you stand by those comments? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm locking down the page (fully protecting it) in whatever status it currently is, and I haven't looked to see what version is up. Off to dispute resolution, the lot of you! :-)

Seriously, though... this seems a crazy thing to get in a revert war about. Can we come to some reasoned consensus? And don't tell me "we have it", because clearly we don't. - Philippe | Talk 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to any consensus. It was always more of a process-issue for me. I must say I'm surprised by your take on this, given the other issues raised by Editorhwaller in his rather unusual comments on my talk page, but I'll respect your decision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The compromise that Snowfire, not me, proposed in the edit history page dated December 31, 2007 (21:23) was to retain the rankings in the lead but place it on the last paragraph. He deleted my reply to him in his Talk page reminding him about this compromise. Now is that fine to keep the rankings in the lead's last sentence ?(it will be with me).Editorhwaller (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Philipe wants this on his Talk page, so I'll reply on yours. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree this whole thing has quite stupid, and thank you for locking the page down. I've been trying to gain a consensus on this since it started, and no one with a differing opinion has ever made a comment on the talk page to discuss it.

Several editors have come to the page and agreed with not putting the ranking up first since not only is it transitory, but also evidence that other colleges and universities do not trumpet their rankings in the first sentence. McGill is not notable because of their ranking, they are ranked because they are notable. If the sole reason McGill is notable is because of this ranking, then next year if they fall, they would no longer be notable.

I tried on numerous occasions to get the anon IP editor to discuss this, and at no point did they ever do so, instead seeking to change the page through edit warring. No non-anonymous editor ever differed with the ranking not being in the first sentence of the lead, nor did they discuss it until forced to by the page's semiprotection.

This admitted WP:MEAT editor is now attempting to edit war on my talk page. Even now, he's trying to force a consensus without discussing anything by trying to carry the argument over to talk pages instead of the proper place. I'd like this ended, so I can be productive with my time on WP.

For every legitimate WP editor that had to waste time on this, I apologize. Today's actions have been a ridiculous waste of time for all of us, but thank you for your attention. Snowfire51 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC) REPLY TO SNOWFIRE: We would not have wasted anyone's time and effort if only you did not lie by denying that 1) you offered a compromise on December 31, 2007 (21:21) in the edit history page of the article ; 2) your compromise was to put the ranking in the last sentence of the lead; and 3) you can achieve consensus simply by changing your mind anytime you wish (on Dec. 31, you wanted it on the lead; today you don't). Editorhwaller (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

REPLY TO SNOWFIRE: We would not have wasted anyone's time and effort if only you did not lie by denying that 1) you offered a compromise on December 31, 2007 (21:21) in the edit history page of the article ; 2) your compromise was to put the ranking in the last sentence of the lead; and 3) you can achieve consensus simply by changing your mind anytime you wish (on Dec. 31, you wanted it on the lead; today you don't). Editorhwaller (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To sum up the WP:MEAT comment above, I suggested the compromise a week ago as a way to get this editor to drop his edit war. This article is not mine to authorize a compromise on, as no one owns wikipedia articles, I was just trying to open up a discussion (which was ignored). I don't think this WP:MEAT editor should be able to force any kind of change with community discussion, since they have never entered into any kind of legitmate edits, or discussion. Check his recent edit summary, he's not interested in contributing anything to wikipedia. Snowfire51 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am truly not amused by meat-puppetry - Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for social experiments. It also seems to me that a couple of decent compromises have been offered and not accepted, so I'm inclined to say that one side of this group is negotiating and the other not and that saddens me. - Philippe | Talk 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I did try and discuss this in good faith on multiple occasions, and I went as far as to post on the talk page even though I figured the anon IP editor wasn't going to reply. Sorry you had to be dragged into this, but after having to revert multiple times, the guy's a complete troll. He hasn't made a single useful edit to WP, and has started fights on several talk pages. He's taken a good page and turned it into the jumping off point for multiple arguments. I appreciate your help.

UPDATE: He's now continually reverting and placing unwanted edits on my talk page and others. Snowfire51 (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The compromise to put the ranking on the lead's last sentence was offered by Snowfire on December 31, 2007 (21:23). You will not be amused by his initial denial of this earlier today, only to backtrack and admit he made the compromise. Now he uses that compromise as a pretext for opening up a discussion. That is gaming, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Snowfire does not seem to be a true editor, but rather a compromising editor who changes his tone and stand every second.

I will go for his compromise to put the ranking on the last sentence of the lead (see Dec. 31 edit history page). Another editor, Shawn, is fine with it. I hope we settle this soon. Thanks. Editorhwaller (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We may be closer to a resolution. See here. I suggested Editorhwaller propose something on the Talk page, since the article's blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

HOPEFULLY FINAL UPDATE: To update you on the McGill University problems, Editorhwaller (and two of his confirmed sockpuppets) have been banned from wikipedia for being solely and purposefully disruptive. Without his disruptions, consensus was easy to come to. I appreciate your patience with this matter. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Tag

updated, replied, and moved comments to that page for conglomeration. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime

I am hapy to call atruce but clearly still trolling he is clearly not. Can some action please be taken. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Please explain in better detail what you mean by edit war. (Sneasel99 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

CBFan

I gave him a month. I'm amazed by the length of his block log and he needs a serious signal that such behavior will not be tolerated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

You're removing listed names at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention because the editors haven't edited. Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention isn't for listing vandalism, it's for listing inappropriate user names. Please let the discussion and the username blocking proceed, don't just remove names arbitrarily. Corvus cornix_talk 07:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Philippe. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Corvus cornix_talk 07:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded on user talk and ANI. - Philippe | Talk 07:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philippe,

There is a nascent wiki I came across and have become hooked to it. Its address is http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page. To put it broadly, inspired by wikipedia, it takes of where wiki ends -- It emphasises on providing useful information (information that impacts my body, my mental health and surroundings).

As an experienced wiki member, could you tell us how do we make this a true wikipeida -- link with impassioned writers and contributers.

I know this is strictly not in realm of wikipedia but I had nowhere else to turn to help.

Thanks and regards mridu

Thank you! - Philippe | Talk 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol

I've made some changes to the article User:Codharris/CAP that you userified for me a while back. I was hoping you could take a look at it again and see if its ready to be published officially. Thanks for your help setting that up! Codharris (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

365Chess.com

you have deleted a page i have created meanwhile i was explaining my point of view here. Please re consider your position. Masugly (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk with WP:WEB. - Philippe | Talk 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Marco Benz

Hey, you deleted the page (I'm not complaining, I put the tag in) just that this still exists.--The Dominator (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, thank you! It's taken care of now. I appreciate that you pointed it out. - Philippe | Talk 04:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, Washington protection

Do you really think we need protection for Vancouver, Washington? I was about to refuse it (but got a phone call) because the alien vandalism is actually an edit every two months. There was one today, sure, but the one previous to that was all the way back on November 20, 2007. Before that was a few edits on November 14, 2007 - from the same IP as on November 20. It seems like a quick few-day-long protect is needed every few weeks or months, not one month-long protect. That's my two cents. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

About user 69.114.140.240

User 69.114.140.240 has a history of outright removing cited material and altering quotations to suit his POV, as in [3] and [4]; isn't this edit of his clear-cut vandalism? SamEV (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No - no edit made in good faith is vandalism. Even edits which may reduce the quality of the encyclopedia... see WP:V WP:VANDAL for more information. I understand how frustrating it is, but it's not vandalism. - Philippe | Talk 23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you call it good faith when he removed the most pertinent information, from reliable sources. What he did violated the very policy you're referring me too, and in the most obvious way. SamEV (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bah, you know what? I pointed you to the wrong policy. I meant to point you to WP:VANDAL, which says: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

Can you convince me that the action was in bad faith? - Philippe | Talk 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Philippe, but I'm not sure that anybody can. I already showed you examples, and next I can only ask that you see his edit history. I suspect that he's the same as User:EDGARR, who has been doing basically the same edits for more than a year. Neither respects sources, no matter how reliable. Nor am I the only editor who's told him about this. For my part I can't call it good faith because he knows full well by now the nature of his actions. Thanks, anyway. SamEV (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are aware...

You are aware that there's a featured article parameter to {{RFPP}}, right? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I am, but that one wasn't technically a featured article. It was an article that was wiki-linked from an "in the news" - so I wasn't sure it really applied. But in the grand scheme of things, I suppose no harm would have been done by using that parameter. Thanks!  :-) - Philippe | Talk 02:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Rollback

Thank you very much. Cheers, LAX 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: A new weekly feature
Special: 2007 in Review	Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added	Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect"	News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler protection

Re: your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, I'm not actually involved in any revert war, just saw the history, and felt that full protection would probably work. Fully protecting it would force editors to use the talk page, I feel. It doesn't require mediation, just discussion, in my opinion.

Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bigredbigred123

Thanks for changing the block from indefinite to 24 hours. Upon closer review it looks like Bigredbigred123 had good intentions and then got frustrated? Bigredbigred123 was never welcomed...so I am going to try to help bring Bigredbigred123 into the fold. Kingturtle (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the indef shouldn't have happened. I hit the wrong button. Hope I got it fixed before it was a source of further frustration. Thanks for looking into Bigred - I hope your welcoming and guidance helps out. - Philippe | Talk 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of University of South Carolina steroid scandal

Thank you very much sir. Getting seriously tired of that one.--Thör ^hammer 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help out. :-) - Philippe | Talk 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I promise

I promise to never commit a personal attack on a Wikipedian again. Thanks for the warning. EWC Champion (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all I needed to know. Thanks! :-) - Philippe | Talk 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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. Ralbot (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Gwen Gale's RFA

You made a comment opposing Gwen Gale's RFA that, in part, mentioned my opposition. I want you to know that I've since supported Gwen Gale, after discussion. While I still think the comments made at that diff were poorly chosen and inflammatory, I personally believe that these issues are largely in the past. If you have the time, I'd ask you to look at Gwen Gale's response to me, and consider whether your concerns still apply. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I understand completely. Thanks. Ral315 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Stoprev

It's blatant advertising. Advertising a service. I also think it's a copyvio just like the last version of Trevor Brady was, before it got deleted, but I haven't checked yet. A user may not put up advertising of their services on Wikipedia. The repeated creation of Trevor Brady got deleted, so he just moved his advertising to his User page. Corvus cornix_talk 04:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see it as advertising. I think he's just giving info about himself, which is appropriate in user space. I deleted Trevor Brady, but I'm allowing the user space. - Philippe | Talk 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was right, it's a copyvio from http://trevorbrady.com/art/html/bio.html, but if it hadn't been, I would have filed an mfd on it. Corvus cornix_talk 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 04:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RfA!

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover your input alerted me to your understandable concerns about unnecessary confrontation. I will take heed and carefully address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sean Sherk

Thanks for offering your 2 cents on this. I think he got the point, because it hasn't cropped up on Sherk's page again. I'm a bit tempted, based on the veiled accusation of Sherk as a sex offender, to report it to the WP:BLP violations page and request that they delete the edits from the page history. I'm not looking to further punish the user who posted them, just get rid of the defamatory material. If you haven't seen it yet, mind checking it out and giving me your thoughts?

diff here.

Thanks again for the help! Gromlakh (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded on user talk. :-) - Philippe | Talk 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Great work! Gromlakh (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

speedy, prod or AfD on Summary of Political positions of Ron Paul

Hi. I figured there was a good chance I had gotten that wrong. Would a WP:PROD possibly be appropriate? The article itself is a duplicate of Political positions of Ron Paul and a full AfD seemed a little unnecessary to me. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help! --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Rosie O'Donnell

Thanks for correcting my typo on the 3RR report. But why have you rewarded the violator of this rule by protecting the article and penalized his opponents who did not immediately revert him this time (even though they could have)? Now he has his way. Not a good move. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have rewarded no one. I have protected the article from editing while the situation is worked out. You'll find that in any page protection, admins will - invariably - have someone say they protected "the wrong version". 50% of people are unhappy with page protections. Therefore, the way we decide how to protect is that we always protect the version of the page that is active when we get there, unless there is blatant vandalism. There was no blatant vandalism, so I protected the extant version of the page. - Philippe | Talk 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you have. Admins should be more concerned with the actual violation of the rules instead of protecting the page. The effect is now since I am less enthusiastic about revert warring than Benji he has his way. Benjiboi is claiming ownership of the article and now even issues personal attacks against me and another editor. He is also showing the reason why he thinks Rosie's comments are nothing special. He does the same and takes it for an argument. "There was no balatant vandalism" and hence Benji's actions were wrong. But you rewarded him. It is a travesty of justice. How do you think the situation can be "worked out" - Benji has been unwilling to cooperation in the past, why should he be now when his version is edged in stone. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I stand by my actions. - Philippe | Talk 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And I am sorry that you just rewarded the perpetrator. Doesn't increase my respect for you. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, we're in a circular argument. I told you what I did and why I did it, and that it's supported by policy (you can read the protection policy to verify that. Your argument is with the policy. If you want to change it, write up a proposal. But until the policy is changed, I stand by my actions, and I'm disengaging from this discussion because we're covering ground we've already covered. - Philippe | Talk 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Str1977. You locked the article, quite conveniently, in a version which would appear to be sympathetic to your own leanings. A very questionable action for an administrator. Moreover, you protected it in a version which includes unquestionably factually false (and verifiably false) statements, statements by the subject of the article, giving the impression that what she said was true. The reason that the quote about Benedict XVI was included in the article in the first place is because it was not only false but egregiously so. It was one of the many facts which demonstrated Rosie's discriminatory animus. Benedict was not in the position which she claimed he held for two decades until 2002. Mamalujo (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL - the funniest thing about this is that you think I have leanings about Rosie. I don't. I've never edited that article. I locked the article to prevent an edit war, and - as I said before - it's an action I stand by. I assert that I would have been in the right to act upon the block, but chose not to because I've had previous interactions with Benji - neither positive nor negative, but interaction, and I wanted an uninvolved administrator to take any action. Once again, I stand by my actions. I'm sorry you disagree with them. - Philippe | Talk 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it right now, but there's a WP page that lists all of the arguments that one side of a dispute is going to have whenever an edit war forces an admin to lock down a page. It's quite funny, and very appropriate to this situation. Phillippe is a good admin, he did what he's supposed to do which is lock it down and try and get everyone to talk it over to prevent the edit war. Whichever side of this discussion eventually wins consensus is irrelevant, he's just trying to start a discussion. He's abiding by WP policy. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not having informed you as your talk page indeed dropped from my mind after my last posting here. I addressed some issues on the AN/I page.

As for Snowfire, I do not know whether Philippe is a good admin. I had no previous experience with him and it may very well be that he is WP's best but in this he acted less than optimal by getting involved but only halfway. The protection does in no way help towards finding a consensus, giving the way the previous discussion and revert war went. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He acted exactly "optimal". WP policy pretty much states that whenever an edit war occurs, a page should be shut down in such a way as to piss off 50% of the concerned parties. That's the percentage you find yourself a part of. No one can edit the page until consensus is gained, and now editors should focus their attention on that, rather than the correct actions of an admin to prevent further edit warring. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly believe I have sufficiently explained my actions, and will walk away from this at this point, unless any new points are raised. I encourage all parties concerned to do the same. - Philippe | Talk 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism revert

Thanks for the notice, repeat vandalism from multiple accounts can get messy :) -- pb30<talk> 18:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Tried once, went down in flames due to editcountitis. But, I'd love to try again! Gromlakh (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm doing recent changes patrol now, at my current pace I could easily have 20k+ edits by March...*twiddle* Gromlakh (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Thanks for approving me so fast for AWB. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. Enjoy it! I use AWB a lot. - Philippe | Talk 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

74.128.58.226

You can't remove a report by issuing a warning that's already been issued, I would appreciate if you undid your edit. Thanks --Charitwo ^talk 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree - you issued a warning about personal attacks, which was totally in order. I added a warning about vandalism, also in order. There are two separate issues. - Philippe | Talk 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB and Porcupine

Thanks for your courteous message. I've responded at User_talk:Dweller#FYI. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for approving me :D Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG! Best. Present. Ever. I love chocolate chip. - Philippe | Talk 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:AIV

Hi Philippe, that's a WP:HUGGLE error... I tried removing it before any admins noticed but dang ;-) - I'll get onto Gurch about why it's doing it. Thanks anyways though! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. Not just HUGGLE - most of the automated tools have glitches. No harm, no foul. - Philippe | Talk 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ash Ketchum

Why did you protect this article? Our edit war had already ended thanks to intervention from another admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.216.61 (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a request at WP:RFPP and no indication that the edit war had died off. - Philippe | Talk 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection of Valentine's Day

Bah humbug :-) But thanks. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Believe me, I did not enjoy the conflict at all. Walking aways would be a good idea if there wasn't the problem of the article dispute. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the article dispute to other people. - Philippe | Talk 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Otis Vandalism

I'm really unsure of what you want me to do on the page WP:ANI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? - Philippe | Talk 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that your comment under mine under User:Jdchamp31's talk page was related to mine. If you look above what you wrote on mine and then look at his you'll know how I got confused. Basically though I was tagged for vandalism on a very small page that I created. I got the impression that my "hangon" template and explanation was considered vandalism. Looking at what others have been saying on it, it looks like i'm not the only one questoning what happened to me. Thanks for any help that you might be able to give me.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbonne International

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Arbonne International, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Arbonne International. Argyriou (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia:Protected titles

I noticed you added a couple articles to the protected titles list for this month. You shouldn't have to do that anymore, as you can now protect nonexistent articles in the same way you protect normal articles. The protected titles list has been deprecated; makes life easier. - auburnpilot talk 23:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

See what happens when you take a bit off and don't pay attention to what's going on around you? They take away the whole darned salt shaker! Or rather, re-configure it so it's easier to use. I like easier. Thanks for letting me know! - Philippe | Talk 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ieattarponsforbreakfast

Seriously, Hoorayforlemonbay was not a sockpuppet of Ieattarponsforbreakfast. By the way, I'msorry for the vandalism I performed with my Hoorayforlemonbay account. It won't happen again. Jessica The Antivandalism Cheerleader (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Popcorn??!!11

For being silly and making me laugh :) --Iamunknown 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! Except it made me hungry.  :( Thank you, so kind of you! - Philippe | Talk 23:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, glad you liked it!  :) Come to think of it, I'm kind of hungry too. /me goes to get food --Iamunknown 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philippe,

I'm interested in making some edits to the LEK Consulting page and am new to Wiki. As the page's creator, can you advise how best to go about this?

Jacques6383 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on user's talk page. - Philippe | Talk 15:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Forge Consulting LLC

I believe my article was deleted because I hit "Save Page" instead of "Show Preview" and saved a VERY incomplete page. I want to recreate the article as part of my effort to get some articles made for quite notable businesses in my area that are absent from Wikipedia. This company, for instance, is based out of Buffalo but has an office near my hometown — they are quite notable for intensely lobbying the state of NY to change its General Obligations Law to allow for structured settlement brokers to waive their commission (previously disallowed) in cases involving the terrorist attacks of September 11. Let me know if this is "notable" enough so that I can finish the initial page and start on some others. One at a time! -Gabusinesses (talk)

Hi there. I've undeleted the article and moved it into your own userspace at User:Gabusinesses/Forge Consulting LLC so that you can continue to work on it. Once you think it's ready, it can be moved out into the encyclopedia (I'd be happy to take a look at it and let you know what I think before you do that if you'd like - a second set of eyes is usually a good thing). - Philippe | Talk 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Philippe, that's probably the best method for me to use. I'll certainly get your opinion on the article before I move it over! Gabusinesses (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jameel Sewell

Thanks so much for protecting that page. I had added a talk about the whole thing this morning, but then he kept editing it. Then he had to go and start cussing at me. Not cool. Once again, thanks. Boydannie (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont fully understand why I was chastised about this whole thing when I tried to get a converstaion going on the talk page AND got cussed at, AND was the person who requested help and protection on the page. Guess you're having a bad night? Boydannie (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that you did a lot of things correctly. What you did incorrectly was to revert the page more than the alloted 3 times. If you read Wikipedia policy at WP:3RR, you'll see that the 3 revert rule is an "electric" fence - in 99% of cases, it automatically triggers a warning. I know it's no consolation, but the other party got one too.

The warning is just that - a warning. I didn't issue any blocks because I think it's possible to work this out with it. I'm sorry you think the warning is unfair - and frankly, i agree that you've been the more mature party in this - but it would be horribly negligent of me to warn one party for violating the rule and not warn both. - Philippe | Talk 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Philippe, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Special Log

Just so you know, when searching through Special Log, it lists based upon WHO took the action. So, if you search for me, you never see the +sysop entry, just the entries where I gave Rollback to someone. You have to search based upon who gave them the rights (in this case Cecropia). I found out it was Cecropia by going to Special:Userrights, which editors don't have access to, but you could also do it by going to Ashibaka's RFA and seeing who closed it. So, no problem with the log, just an understanding of how it works. - Philippe | Talk 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't true for all people. Do a search for several other sysops and you'll find that the records are there. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did a search based on the way you suggested. Look closely. It says that User:Ashibaka's rights were changed from "none" to "none," both times. [5] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Same for everyone else who got +sysop that time...look at the others. :-) - Philippe | Talk 01:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another thank you is in order.

I tell you, I tried to be nice to that Paulinho28 character and he is just coming unglued on me. Not only is he still going nuts after a 31-hour block, his edits are totally idiosyncratic. He's clogging up the edit histories of his pet projects with little tiny edits made one at a time. Times like this I wish I hadn't given back the mop and bucket. It would be a pleasure at this point to give hime a timeout myself. In any event, I thank you for your intervention. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm keeping an eye on him now.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bless you. You're a genuine asset to this site. Hope to work with you again soon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• If he'd have only left out the "a," it would almost have been either a compliment or a statement of fact.  :) Seriously, I've seen chips on shoulders in the last five years or so, but this little fellow in Rome really takes the canelloni. Thanks, bro. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Thanks for handling it with good humour. - Philippe | Talk 01:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bydesignonly

I see you blocked Bydesignonly, then unblocked with the comment "Bad block." Just curious, why was it a bad block? The user account is promotional and does appear to be a role account. -- Kesh (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I went back and forth on this. Usually, when I block an account as promotional, I want to see Username:ABCcompany creating an article about ABCCompany. In this case, it wasn't that clear cut. Since I felt like it would probably get killed on appeal, I thought the better thing to do was sit back and wait for a more clear cut violation. I agree that it's fishy, but I think it's just skating the line. - Philippe | Talk 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I read on WP:DRV#Sheraton Cadwell, while they didn't directly create an article about the company, they created several promotional articles for their clients. Since they don't list in the user's Contributions, I can't see for myself. -- Kesh (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what? You're entirely right. I'm not sure how I missed that, but I've blocked them. Thanks for taking the time to question it. - Philippe | Talk 05:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This exchange [6] between the author of this spam-oriented stuff and the one editor that tried to help, sums it up pretty well. The spammer sugar-coated a snub of that editor's offer to help, and took verbal shots at the admins that saw it for what it was. The spammer has already given up, because it was clear they weren't going to get to do the article the way they wanted to, i.e. as self-promotion. That, and the writing was atrocious, but that's another matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and Kesh was entirely right to call me on it. I clearly didn't look into that one hard enough. That user is probably best spending their time somewhere other than Wikipedia. - Philippe | Talk 06:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was mostly just curious to find out your reasoning. Sometimes I see something that looks off, but the admin points out a fact or rule I overlooked. I'm glad I could help out in this instance. And thank you so much for the barnstar! -- Kesh (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arbonne International

An article that you have been involved in editing, Arbonne International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbonne International. Thank you. Argyriou (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your prompt response.Momento (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. :-) - Philippe | Talk 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please note: "Dictionary of nutty Beliefs & Religions" was not entered by me as you can see from the history. What I have entered however is the following (properly cited):

In 2008, an article by The Register stated that the organization is "widely recognized as a cult"[78] and that the editing of the Prem Rawat article by some editors of Wikipedia is evidence of "... the most extreme conflict of interest in the history of Wikipedia."

As published here: The Register

Attempts to discuss edits with Momento have gone without response. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I left the talk page of the article conveniently unprotected for you to discuss exactly this type of thing. :-) - Philippe | Talk 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate entry deleted

Dear Philippe, I don't understand why I can't create an entry on Rabbi Herbert Friedman, one of the most important American Jewish leaders of his generation. My first try was deleted by a bot because it was copied from the web site of his foundation, but I re-wrote and expanded it (see below) and now you have deleted it because it is too short. I have often come across short entries in Wikipedia and they serve as stems for further editing and expansion. If there is a length minimum for entries, please tell me what it is. This is not a very welcoming experience, and although I have contributed before I am not likely to bother again. You can google me to find out why I should be welcomed as a legitimate contributor. I don't think I will be able to find this page again, so if you answer me please copy your answer in an email to antmk@mindspring.com

Thank you,

Melvin Konner, MD, PhD, Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor, Emory University

Rabbi Herbert A. Friedman Founding President Emeritus, Wexner Heritage

Rabbi Herbert A. Friedman is a Reform rabbi and the founding president (now emeritus) of the Wexner Heritage Foundation. He inspired the Wexner Heritage Program seminars, which have now been educating Jewish community leaders for over two decades. He co-founded the Foundation in 1985 with Leslie Wexner, chairman of Limited Brands, and served for a decade as president. For more than two decades before that he was executive chairman of the national United Jewish Appeal, where he designed and led the missions to Israel that became the basis for much of the American Jewish community's support for Israel. As a U.S. Army chaplain at the end of World War II and later in collaboration with the Hagana he was deeply involved in rescuing Jews from Europe and in the immigration (Aliyah Bet) of many thousands of those Jews to Israel. His forceful personality, innovative leadership, and dedication to both Israel and the American Jewish community laid the foundation for the strong and extensive relationships between that community and the state and people of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangldwing (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Konner - You're welcome to create an article about Rabbi Friedman; he's clearly notable under our guidelines. I deleted it, however, because other than his name and title, there was no content. We need a bit more than that. What you've typed here is sufficient, and I'll even create the article for you. I'll copy this to you by email. - Philippe | Talk 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Page unprotection assistance needed

Could you help me with this? Thanks. --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at that and decided I'm not qualified to make a judgment. I know next to nothing about movies or our standards for when they should be allowed to get an article, so I'm deferring that to another admin. Luckily, there are several that watchlist this page and hopefully one of them can help out. I'm sorry I can't help. - Philippe | Talk 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okey, thanks anyway. --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you got the same message that I did.

My, but our little Italian friend with the chip on his shoulder has demonstrated the same remarkable facility with some of the coarser words of the English language with both of us. This reminds me of the time when I was an admin and I properly deleted some silly Urban Dictionary dicdef...and the user just went nuts. I mean nuts. Ran me up on RfC. I had to protect my talk page and I got hammered for that as well. I wound up quitting over that. Now it's happening again. Can we just shut this guy down for good at this point? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm toying with it right now. I'm sort of thinking this is a "give him enough rope to hang himself" situation. I think that when he comes back, he'll be unable to resist doing something stupid, in which case I'm prepared to issue a MUCH longer block. - Philippe | Talk 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. FYI, he is still at it, blanking his user page and that of the IP page. I shouldn't have left that nasty note on the IP page, but that nonsense of his just caused me to see red. Could I impose on you to protect both of those talk pages? Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Protection

Hello. There was actually one more IP vandalism edit today, so please go ahead an protect Stormbreaker (novel). Thanks! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman calendar article

THanks for semi-protecting the Julian calendar article. As I predicted, Mr Anonymous is now starting to add similar comments to the Roman calendar article -- see [7]. Could you please semi-protect the Roman calendar article too? THanks. --Chris Bennett (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. :-) - Philippe | Talk 17:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly! --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again, this time in the article Mercedonius. See [8]. Please semi-protect this too.

What is the next step with someone like this? He clearly is deliberately making a point of not going to the Talk page with his issues. --Chris Bennett (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a pain. I'm sorry that you have to deal with it! Unfortunately, I can't just keep semi-protecting articles because they're eventually going to become UN-protected again and we're setting ourselves up for a major problem. I can block him for disruptive editing, but I'm going to have to give him fair warning (usually on EACH IP address) before I block him. And because he's an IP editor, I can't block the IPs indefinitely. For now I'm going to start issuing final warnings (actually, you can as well - every time you see him doing it on an IP address that I haven't warned, leave {{subst:uw-generic4}} on his user talk page. Then, if he does it again from that address, let me know and I'll block it. - Philippe | Talk 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK will do.

I did a WHOIS on his IP addresses. Two of them are terminals in the Islington public library. The third, which is the one he is currently using, is not so clear -- all WHOIS says is that it's in Hackney -- but I suspect it's also a public library terminal. I suppose editors using such terminals who have a WP account wouldn't be affected. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the type of block that's placed on them, but in general, yes, you're correct. However, there may be other editors using those terminals anonymously: particularly from a library. We're an encyclopedia after all. :-) I think we're to the point, though, where blocks may be unavoidable to get the point across. - Philippe | Talk 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I didn't notice it before but the third address is really a group: 156.61.19.xx. I've posted this notice on each address of this type used so far, with an explanation, but it looks like these are server-assigned. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an IP range. I had seen that and considered whether it would be effective to do a range-block to get them up, but it's a potentially huge amount of collateral damage for relatively (no offense, but he's not deleting the main page here...) disruption. - Philippe | Talk 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree but what are the options? This is turning into a Mexican standoff, where the last man standing wins. I've already been through one of these situations, where someone who got completely bugeyed about capitalization, of all things, kept hammering at it until everyone else just gave up to keep the peace. It seems to me to be a serious weakness in the WP concept -- Gresham's Law. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the "Last Warning" notices were fairly effective. The Nameless One has stopped ranting in the articles and has confined himself to small changes in Mercedonius that reflect his position. He also hasn't returned (yet) to Julian calendar even though semi-protection has now expired. So we're making progress. But he's still completely anonymous, he still refuses to use the Talk page and he still refuses to stop making edits unless his solution is accepted, no matter how often I knock down the coconuts he sets up. Since he is at least being halfway civilised, I am now responding to his Edit Summary points on Talk:Mercedonius. But I still see no way to bring this to a close, since I don't see him responding to Mediation or Arbitration. Any suggestions? --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice please

Hi, you advised me to not engage a particular editor who has continued to target the Rosie O'Donnell article in what I consider to be a baiting behavior of edit-warring perhaps to get me into a 3rr violation. I've sourced and double-checked everything but they simply revert and want to debate me on the talk page. Any advice? Benjiboi 11:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Benji, and thanks for asking. I think it's time to get this one some more eyes on that article. Have you considered asking the Mediation Committee for help? Sometimes the presence of a formal mediator, which is one of the steps of our dispute resolution procedures, can be a calming influence and also help persuade editors to come to some middle ground. Sometimes, parties disappear altogether when the Mediation Committee appears.

There's another group, the Mediation Cabal, which is less formal, that might also be able to help out. You could also ask for a third opinion.

Probably my favorite option would be to request an article RFC - most folks are aware of our editor RFC's, but there's a similar process to quickly get eyes on an article and determine whether something fits or doesn't fit. It can be a really effective way to sort the curd from the whey in a dispute like this. As with other RFCs, you can find the directions at WP:RFC.

In any case, you're right to avoid being baited into a 3RR issue. Be on guard for that. As you no doubt saw, several of us (including you) took some heat and it was quite frustrating - it's the sort of thing to "bruise a ripe fruit".  :-)

Please feel free to ask me for more help as you go through this process. I think I'd start with an article RFC and then to the Mediation Committee if you weren't able to come to some sort of consensus. It's not a quick process, but it's usually a process that sticks, which beats the hell out of revert wars. - Philippe | Talk 16:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for supporting NPA policy

This comment by you a couple of weeks ago is excellent, Philippe. Enforcement of the no personal attacks policy like this supports the fabric of Wikipedia's community. You've managed to get across a strong message here without in any way coming close to violating NPA yourself. Well done. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Coppertwig. Comments like that mean the world to me. It's quite appreciated. - Philippe | Talk 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FFS

If you do a deletion based on an OTRS message, can you PLEASE close the OTRS message afterwards? Thank you. DS (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, my mistake. I honestly thought I had. Thanks for pointing it out. - Philippe | Talk 18:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan unprotect request

I think protecting the page was fine when it was the subject of an edit war with an IP user. However, now that it is the subject of an AfD, it is extremely unfair to the defenders to be unable to add the citations that would refute the claims of lack of notability. Now that the phrase "openly gay" has been removed, and we think that the anon editor was Jay Brannan, BLP concerns should not be an issue. In any case thats an concern for editing an article, not deletion. I really don't think that anyone is going to add back openly gay in the current situation. There have been more than a few articles that have been improved to change the AfD per the Heymann Standard, and this article deserves that same chance. Requesting change to semi-protection. — Becksguy (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having the article protected during an AfD is not ideal. I'd far prefer to have it available to be edited. However, since the subject of the article has contacted OTRS and expressed BLP concerns, I'm not 100% confident that I'm ready to unprotect it yet. The subject asked for the AfD, as I recall (although I say that without going to the AfD to check so I could be mis-remembering), and I have a pretty strong suspicion the edit warring will resume - so for now, I'm leaving protection in place, though I'll go and look at the AfD closely this afternoon (and the OTRS ticket) and see if there's anything to change my mind. - Philippe | Talk 14:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I should have pointed out that you can use the {{editprotected}} template to request changes while the page is protected. - Philippe | Talk 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I know about editprotected. It would have been very difficult and time consuming to overhaul an article piecemeal with editprotected tags for each edit. Anyway, it's moot now, as the protection expired (I assume expired) today. Thanks for considering it. — Becksguy (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The protection did, indeed, expire. I'm obviously okay with changes to the article now, but if they result in the same disputed content being readded again, I'm likely to re-protect the article. If we can make positive changes, though, and find some way to minimize the edit warring, I think that's for the best. - Philippe | Talk 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We were reverting driveby IP deletions that appeared to be based on nothing more than a homophobic agenda, as those IPs made no other changes, constructive or otherwise. However, see my comment in Talk:Jay Brannan#"Openly gay" as to edit wars over, and appropriateness of, this phrase, once we knew that it was Jay Brannan himself. We obviously have a lot to work through on this article to get to consensus, but I believe we will. — Becksguy (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Request unprotection of WGA strike article

Hi, I'd like to request unprotection of Writers Guild of America strike (2007–present). Looking at the 48 hours prior to its protection, most of the IP editors made good or at least good-faith edits to the page, and the article has had a history of positive additions by unregistered editors. What little vandalism it gets is trivial to overcome.--Father Goose (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You sold me. Done. - Philippe | Talk 18:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi and User:str1977

I recommended that they not engage. Revert warring is clearly engaging. I stand by my recommendation that the two of them walk away and not engage with each other. - Philippe | Talk 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, then. Benjiboi is interpreting it as continuing to revert but not to discuss. Your clarification on his talk page should help. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

MediaStudies110

As you are the only admin I really know, I just wanted to point this user out to you. The article they created, "Media Studies at UVA", which I would link to only I have no clue how, seems to be purely an advertisement for that Major. The article was on a track to be deleted, but I dont know what happened with that. If you could take a looksee and see what it is you see, that would be great, but something strikes me as odd with that one. Queerbubbles (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have started an AFD on Media Studies at UVA; I agree that it's fairly unencyclopedic. I could make an argument that it's nothing but advertising but it's sufficiently borderline that I wanted wider community input. Good catch, thank you. - Philippe | Talk 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:HenryWLasterLeatherPride

User talk:HenryWLasterLeatherPride and User talk:70.161.189.155 appear to be the same person per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leather_Pride_flag&action=history. HenryWLasterLeatherPride has been blocked indef by you but the IP was only blocked 31 hours by User:Master of Puppets apparently not realizing they were the same person or just not award of editing after his blocked of the IP. Or maybe it's a case of the IP finally registered as HenryWLasterLeatherPride and your block has them both ultimately indef blocked? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no easy way to tell without checkuser permissions, and no checkuser's going to run a check like that for us. What I do know, from Special:Ipblocklist, is that the IP associated with our friend Henry has not tried to log on anonymously, because I'd see a block entry for that. So, my inclination is to believe that we got him with the name block. I'll keep an eye out though, and if you see him come back as an anon or another name, please let me know and I'll get him there too. - Philippe | Talk 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SMUinsider

This person is a SPA and his edits are painting St Matthews University in the most negative light in the short number of edits possible. Might you keep an eye on him? Bstone (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I see some real issues with NPOV on there. I'll keep an eye on that. - Philippe | Talk 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to give you a quick "Thank You" for semi-protecting Pencil. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. happy to help. - Philippe | Talk 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

user: nbngroup

Hey, I reported this guy to the usernames to be looked at page, and it was removed due to the fact that his name had Group in it didnt mean he was a advertiser... however when I looked online NBN group was a legit company. A few minutes later the dude has turned his userpage into one giant advert for that company. I'm not getting any love from the board, bots or admins who look there, so could you take a looksie? Thanks. Queerbubbles (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

nm... finally got love. thanks anyway! Queerbubbles (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad	Foundation's FY2007 audit released
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope	Best of WikiWorld: "W"
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution	Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous. Thanks Pedro :  Chat  for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

consider BLP

The percentage of edits by IP vandals is too high at the Larry Sanger article. Please consider indefinetly semi-protecting the article. It has become a troll magnet. Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

UAA

How exactly is bastardpunk not against the username policy? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's try it the other way around... what's wrong with it that requires immediate blocking? Someone can self-describe as a bastard (a child of an unwed mother and father) and a punk. You may certainly request that they change it, but it's sufficiently borderline that I'm unwilling to block for it. - Philippe | Talk 04:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough, regarding the usage of the term bastard I mean. It's just that it's almost invariably used as a derogatory label - I'll drop a comment on the talk page. Thanks. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Thanks for semi-protecting both of my subpages I requested. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh hai

So there I was, innocently reading the admin noticeboard when I leave my mouse hovering over your signature and see lolcat a few seconds later. I blame you for the Mountain Dew now dripping down my monitor :) Shell ^babelfish 01:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Andre Nickatina

Hello. I see alot of admins deleting the andre nickatina page. It is also currently protected. I wonder why? Andre Nickatina needs a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianGS (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Wyllie

Did you forget to delete the talk page when you deleted the article Robert Wyllie earlier? ww2censor (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidently. :-) I got it now, and thank you. - Philippe | Talk 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding comment was added at 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I just wanted to call to your attention the WP:3RR as it pertains to the writer/not-a-writer debate on Matt Sanchez. Please be sure to not revert the same content 3 times in a 24 hour period. - Philippe | Talk 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of 3RR. If you plan to gangwheel the page, it will be reverted soon enough, by others. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "gangwheel" - I've made no significant edits to that page. I'm calling to your attention a policy. I regret your aggressive response to that. - Philippe | Talk 04:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And I "regret" the officious tone of your "warning." Stop restoring it on my page. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> OK, but... well, you've been warned. The next action may result in blocking. - Philippe | Talk 05:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Helps!

User:205.189.25.228 is a returning sock of somebody, all edits are personal attacks and vandalism. I came to you first since you've already reverted one of his edits. I'll take it to WP:AIV Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, you're good. Gracias for the help! Snowfire51 (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's back. User:205.189.25.216 Snowfire51 (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, time to start thinking about a range-block. - Philippe | Talk 05:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, he's now harassing me off-wiki at my website. Is there anything I can do about that? Snowfire51 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not much. Complaints to his ISP might be fruitful, but other than that, not much. Looks like he's actually editing from a school... you can get the abuse/complaints address by going here: [9]. Good luck! - Philippe | Talk 05:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning notice

I disagree with that, as in it's been placed there for a reason, and if the user blanks it...granted, my feelings may be not too good, but it comes only from experience that the users who remove the notices just don't care. But I could be wrong. DodgerOfZion (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 8	18 February 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees	WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab"
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status	Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 9	25 February 2008	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: Michael Snow	Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned	Two major print encyclopedias cease production
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia"	News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Family Guy
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring

I accept your offer. You may help me if you want, just tell me where to start. JFBurton (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the comment in my RfB. Despite what happened, I hope I still have your trust as a Wikipedian and an admin. Acalamari 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you I'm not going to run for ArbCom. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 22:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your block of User: Victor64

Your block of User: Victor64 seems to have been done in violation of Wikipedia policy. At the time that User:Equazcion made a "final warning" the new user in question (Victor64) had made two constructive edits (fixing vandalism by others), and only one destructive edit. Issuing a final warning under this circumstances is completely outside any of the guidelines for dealing with vandalism. In fact, it fits under the description of What vandalism is not - tests by experimenting users. The guidelines note that "Rather than be warned for vandalism, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the sandbox (e.g., using the test template message) where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive.". Within 6 minutes of his first destructive edit, Victor64 made a second destructive edit. At that point User:Equazcion reported on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism that this was a vandalism-only account - despite the evidence suggesting that this was merely a new user experimenting.

You then blocked Victor64 indefinitely - which appears to be completely out of line with what occurred. Can you please remove the block, apologise to the user, and tell me how disciplinary action can be taken against User:Equazcion for his actions?

Also, rather than just blocking the user, you managed to block the IP of an entire institution. That seems completely overboard for a user making only a couple of experiments within a few minutes. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to me with this question. I'm sorry to say that I disagree with you. That particular user showed no signs of wanting to become a productive member of the community - only of disruption. While I am a solid proponent of hospitality towards newbies, WP:BITE implies something in return: it implies that the newcomer also demonstrate some intention of taking the mission of the encyclopedia seriously. This user did not demonstrate that. Users caught in an autoblock can petition to have the autoblock lifted and I will look positively upon such a petition. In fact, (and I'll leave a message to this effect on Victor64's user talk) page: if Victor should apologize for his actions and assure me that he will not engage again in similar actions, I'll personally unblock him. - Philippe | Talk 04:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There's more context on Nfitz's talk page. Spartaz took care of the autoblock, and my suggestion was similar to yours. Acroterion _(talk) 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just left a message on his talk page that I would be pleased to unblock him and offered to find him a mentor, should he choose to come back. I do require that he apologize and pledge not to misbehave again. My sincere hope is that he'll take me up on both parts (unblock and mentorship). On a separate matter, please accept my thanks for your very kind words on my behalf. I'm honored to have your respect and hope to continue to live up to it. - Philippe | Talk 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You do require him to apologise? Hang on - your block cited that he was blocked because his "account is being used only for vandalism." This was 100% not true, as the account was not used only for vandalism. The edit summary you wrote noted that it was a "(Vandalism-only account)"; which is also 100% not true. Furthermore, the user who made the complaint, used a final-warning on him, for his first malicious edit; the template that was used for this first offence, by a new user was Template:Uw-vandalism4im; the documentation for this Level4im template notes that this assumes bad faith; surely a new user, who has made a couple of constructive edits, should not be started at the highest level of warning. Perhaps level 2, but not level 4. As noted he made 2 malicious edits - what can I say, they hadn't invented the web when I was 12 :) the second edit appeared to be co-incidental with the first warning (at least that what I observed - I realise that the log shows that it appeared 2 minutes before the second edit - I don't think one can assume that a new user is seeing the warning as quick as people seem to think that they will).

At worst, a block was justified ... but it should have been a 12-hour or 24-hour block to protect Wikipedia - not an indefinite block - Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks seems clear on this.

Please lift the block, I just don't think a history of only 2 malicious edits (which were merely experimentation), virtually simultaneously, warrants the extreme reaction. And asking a 12-year old to apologise in writing, when it's quite clear that the whole thing was trumped up ... yeah that's going to happen. Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely DO require him to apologize for vandalism. This wasn't mere experimentation, which can be done safely in many platforms, this was out and out vandalism. Yes, I require an apology to the community on his user talk page. He may also request a block review by putting {{Unblock|the reason he should be unblocked}} on his talk page, but my suspicion is that it may be simpler to just apologize to the community so that I can unblock him. If the 12 year old isn't comfortable apologizing in writing for defining things as "retarded" and replacing the content of pages with that, I'm not comfortable unblocking him. - Philippe | Talk 14:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have to take this to WP:ANI then. I really don't appreciate Admins like you operating outside the rule structure, with your own agenda. It just destroys Wikipedia to have you making lies like this. Though it will take a day or two for me to get there, when I have the time. Nfitz (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are always welcome to take it to ANI. The user is welcome, as well, to appeal the unblock using the template that I told you, or to write to our unblock mailing list to request unblocking. That address is unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. I'm not sure what you think my agenda is, but I assure you it's only encyclopedia building. - Philippe | Talk 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But why the lies? Nfitz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Twice is enough...

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism a couple of times on my userpage, and for continued efforts to stop vandalism here on Wikipedia, I - Milk's Favorite Cookie hereby award you this barnstar. Congrats! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind to thank me like this. I appreciate it more than you know. - Philippe | Talk 04:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Rollback

• Hello, I saw that you are an admin that is willing to consider requests for rollback, and, I thought I would ask. Currently, I spend a fair bit of time partolling the recent changes, and doing my best to fight vandalism, and this tool would make vandalism fighting easier. I would not actively use the feature, however, until I have practiced with it here. Your consideration is appreciated, thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it. :-) - Philippe | Talk 14:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Hey, I just wanted to let you know, that I've unblocked a user you blocked, Sundoor (talk · contribs), to allow them to change usernames to ivegotnum (talk · contribs). Since it was just a username block, I hope this is OK with you. Thanks, SQL^{Query me!} 13:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely and thanks for the notification. - Philippe | Talk 14:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove the deletion template?

If the article Universe reality is a keep due to default, does that mean the template can then be removed? And by the way: I like your cat picture!--Richiar (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the template - thanks for calling it to my attention. Thanks for the compliment on the lolcat, too... I stole that, fair and square! :-) - Philippe | Talk 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Need your help in recovering and cleaning up the GOOOH National Committee article

Philippe, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and was hoping that you could help clarify why the GOOOH National Committee article was deleted so that I can better understand how to submit quality articles. Based on the independent newspaper references I added to the article ([10], [11], [12] & [13]), I expected to pass the WP:ORG policy with flying colors, but apparently this is not the case. I asked for an explanation in the afD discussion as to why the article was non-notable even with the references, but none was ever given.

Would you be willing to 1) undelete the article and post it to my userspace so I can continue working on it, and 2) tell me how I can pass admin standards? Would using the Unity08 article as a model help, as GOOOH is a very similar entity and structured with the FEC in the same way? I really worked hard on this article and would hate to lose all the effort. Thanks in advance for your help! --Ericwooten3 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded on user talk. - Philippe | Talk 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete Afd closure

Yo Philippe, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Essentials – Lifehouse as delete, and deleted ITunes Essentials – Lifehouse, but left the other three nominated articles untouched. There seemed to be consensus to delete all four articles; do I need to nominate each of them separately or can they be deleted now? Thanks, скоморохъ 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. My apologies, and I've deleted them all. - Philippe | Talk 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time. Regards, скоморохъ 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Philippe,

I'm unpleasantly surprised to find that the "Kelvin Tan (Artist)" entry has been deleted. I have been following his work for years, and despite his notorious aversion towards archiving documentation of his work from the media, it does exist on the integrated Straits Times network, which you would need to have a paid account to access, and thus the inability of search engines to access such archives. I disagree with the deletion of the article because of the inability to reference his work. You would have to realise that while it would be most favourable to have a proper referencing system towards creating articles of encyclopaedic content, in many instances, it is truly a choice of non-choice. I believe I have written the article(s) in good faith and not for any blatant promotion of a nobody trying to be somebody. In such a globalized world, the Internet search engine is not THE end-all solution towards the verifiablity of information. Localized knowledge is increasingly important in coping with a globalized world and that's what I'm trying to share here. While wikipedia relies heavily on secondary research, it must not ignore the importance of first-hand, primary research put into an article. Please consider these circumstances before deleting the copious amounts of research put into creating the article. For example, just to verify the notablity of the artist, check out the following links:

http://www.gibson.com/allaccessNewsItems.aspx?aliaspath=/AllAccess/Songwriter+Kelvin+Tan+Visits+S

http://www.dialecticrealm.com/images/Esplanade%20Late%20Nite%20Series_flyer-72dpi.jpg

Yours,

Elected1984

Notability Concerns

You recently deleted a small page of mine about Frank Stabley. It was clearly labeled by a bot for speedy deletion, upon which I added a hold tag and immediately provided a response on the discussion page. As per the clearly dilineated policies of wikipedia, I made case for the notability of the article. I do not understand why it was necessary to delete it; it was unfinished, and furthermore biographical. Wikipedia policy clearly states that notability is not under policy as criteria for speedy deletion of biographical pages. Whiteknight521 (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A biographical page can be deleted for a lack of notability (see WP:BIO for more information). In this case, the page failed to assert notability, and provided no secondary sources to demonstrate notability. I stand by the deletion. However, I'd be happy to undelete the page and move it into your userspace so that you could continue work on it, if you'd like. - Philippe | Talk 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From bberg

From: bberg (bberg009@yahoo.com) Why did you delete the web page I wrote despite the hangon tag. you did not even bother to read the page?

Hi Philippe,

You deleted the page "Dr. Bjarne Berg", one of the world's leading experts on Business Intelligence and Data warehousing Despite a 'hand-on tag'. How can this not be notable? - Please restore.. bberg009

Hi bberg: Yes, I read the page. This page failed to demonstrate notability through secondary sources as defined at WP:BIO. I'd be pleased to restore the page to your userspace so that you could continue to work on it, if you'd like. - Philippe | Talk 13:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

JFBurton

I would like to draw your attention to this edit where he changes this perfectly fine working link to this completely non-existent site for no reason. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll ask about it. - Philippe | Talk 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And in case you missed this particular incident during the original blocking discussion, it's worth looking at to see what you're up against. This edit was made by his sockpuppet changing G. Jeff Olsen's name to "Tim Burton" and his birthplace and country of residence from America to the UK. The page was then moved to match, before moving it to Jeff Olson. A couple of months later JFBurton then decided to move it back to Tim Burton, and removed his real name completely. An hour later he then amended his userpage claiming the man was his father...good luck, you'll need it! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen that. I'm choosing to take him at his word that he wishes to contribute, but I'll be the very first one to block if I see abusive editing, and I think he knows that. - Philippe | Talk 22:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no explanation for that. I do not remember doing it. JFBurton (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ecuhek

Hi, I'm not really sure why my article (Warwick JIsoc) was deleted. It seemed like it was on grounds of notability but I have found loads of others of a similar calibre. For example, [[14]][[15]], [[16]] etc If it is on grounds of comprehensiveness or structure, I wasn't finished, I simply hit 'save page' rather than 'show preview' by mistake like the person below me. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a bunch --Ecuhek (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted because of a lack of notability, as established through reliable sources. I'd be happy to restore it to your userspace so that you could continue to work on it, if you'd like, but until notability can be demonstrated, it's probably unlikely to survive in the main encyclopedia... - Philippe | Talk 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WyvernRail PLC Closure

Sorry for the belated reply (i've been ultra-busy), but may I ask why is this a KEEP? The consensus was to Merge and Redirect?

No offence, but this is kinda stupid, and I ask you to rethink your decision. In the meantime, I have added a merge tag to the article.

RE Civility: I will admit I MAY have been a little uncivil, but I was being wound up be the other user - please have a word with the other user also.

I was also annoyed at the time as the publicity manager of Wyvern was also making several personal attacks against me. These have still to be resolved.

Thank you in anticipation,

BG7 13:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

FREELANG.com

I think what you can give me the source code of the page for add to the page FREELANG Dictionary, linked to the web page. Thanks. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking me to restore the page and put it in your user-space? - Philippe | Talk 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ceauntay13 and puppets

Is there a way to block the rest of these? Bearian (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they're all blocked now... JzG got 'em. - Philippe | Talk 20:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Bearian (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Elections

Hello, can you clarify what you real name is on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Committee/en ? Thank you in advance Anthere (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely, Ant. Done. - Philippe | Talk 13:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo1966 Username

I have put the issue of [17] in WP:RFCN Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Victor64

That's kind of rude isn't it? Archiving my question, rather than answering it? Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't noticed your question before I archived... but I'm afraid that you and I aren't going to come to see eye to eye on this one. I offered terms for an unblock and it appears you just want to keep arguing, so I'm not sure what good would come of continuing the discussion. I wish you the best. - Philippe | Talk 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Before I went further, I wanted an explanation why you've had no qualms in the lies you made, in your block. That's the one thing I don't get. Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, if you'd like another opinion, I encourage you to get one. I'm not going to argue the same points over and over. - Philippe | Talk 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_of_User:Victor64 for review. - Philippe | Talk 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm travelling out of town until after Easter - so I'll response to it - but I'll have to go into more detail after Easter. Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess that aspect is resolved. But I'm confused to as why you have said that the account was a vandalism-only account, and that it wasn't being used for vandalism, when that clearly is not the case from the edit record. Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

--for stepping in against the lynching of Igor. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 11:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. For the record, I support and endorse his most recent block. I just didn't support the process on ANI. - Philippe | Talk 13:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Hi there. Just a note that when relisting AfDs, they need to be added to the current day's page, or they'll just not get seen. I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team flight brothers, but it's only linked from the March 1 page, which very few (if any) people are looking at now. I'll list it properly. It also helps to remove it from the original page so that the relist doesn't get accidentally closed early when an admin trying to close off March 1 sees lots of activity on the debate and thinks it just got overlooked. Splash - tk 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! I thought I had. Thanks for pointing out my error - I'll be more careful next time. - Philippe | Talk 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Smiley Face

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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 03:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you! I needed that. :-) - Philippe | Talk 03:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Iran Air Flight 655

Hello there, I don't mean to put you on the spot or anything but am wondering if you either 1) felt Talk:Iran Air Flight 655#On the photo and NPOV wasn't a good argument against the image appearing in the article or 2) Happened upon the talk page during the time Farmanesh had hidden it (either accidentally or on purpose)? Anynobody 05:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ever since AF [added] that image he's been edit-warring to keep it in the article. First it's an image of a child killed in the attack, then it's consistent with death because he's a medical doctor, then it doesn't have any encyclopedic value that he bothered to learn about, then it doesn't have a relevant caption (but it does have a caption) but it can still show things (not that they necessarily have any of that weird encyclopedic value stuff). I would go on but I got to the part where he equates the shootdown of a presumed hostile aircraft from a nation attacking neutral ships (you know... kinda like Germany in World War I and II) with the Holocaust.

That conflict isn't going to be resolved until someone says 'well, there's an argument on that side... and there's Wikipedia policy and proper level-headed writing on that side' and ends it. John Nevard (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did see the conflict. However, Wikipedia administrators absolutely do not take sides in content disputes. Our role in a situation like this one is simply to lock down the page to force the edit warring to stop, so that people are forced to discuss it on the talk page. May I suggest WP:DR? - Philippe | Talk 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(Up front I apologize for editing everyone's comments, but I got the impression Philippe thought that there was only a comment from one editor.) Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking you to take sides and have been going to great lengths to keep the discussion as fair as possible in a dispute where some people's first language isn't English (making things more complicated). I actually know several admins who would probably have gladly deleted the image in question had I gone to them. Honestly though that type of behavior sidesteps much of the discussion process leaving some people feeling marginalized.

However I do have a concern that Farmanesh either accidentally misunderstood the situation or may have abused your good faith. The reason for my concern is this edit, essentially hiding an argument he hadn't addressed, coming at around the same time as he made the request to lock the image in.

Either way, (whether Farmanesh distorted the talk page an accident or on purpose) I'm guessing you didn't notice because surely you thought he was accuratly describing the situation. Wheras if the talk page sections had been "correct" you probably would have noticed his behavior is more like edit warring than constructive editing. Anynobody 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, this was not a unilateral removal as the request said, seriously besides myself I counted five editors in support of removing it from the article.

• Editor 1
• Editor 2
• Editor 3
• Editor 4
• Supported by editor 5

In short the situation was misrepresented to you, there are two editors stubbornly refusing to acknowledge basic concepts like NPOV and WP:OR while at least six have been disagreeing. Then one of the two comes to ask for protection by saying an editor, I presume me, has been unilaterally trying to remove it. Thus creating a situation which not only violates WP:NPOV but worse still has turned a good admin into a tool in an edit war by abusing their good faith. Anynobody 02:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You were misled, don't you care?

Original request by Farmanesh
Farmanesh has been unilaterally reintroducing the image (diffs can be provided), ignoring relevant discussion on the article talk page. He actually hid that relevant discussion then requested protection under the false pretense that "someone" was removing it without discussion when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Doesn't it bother you that either by accident or design you were used as a tool in an edit war your actions were trying to stop? Anynobody 02:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Philippe, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank You for the protection for my userpage.Being a RC Patroller makes my userpage a target for vandals.It is due to people like you that Wikipedia runs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Courtsey Blanking of Glenn Murphy

Philippe, I'd like to request a courtesy blanking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Murphy, Jr. (2nd nomination). Thanks. MrPrada (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. :-) - Philippe | Talk 14:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Gordon24fan

Im what we call the hide admin. Kinda like a secret agent admin.(Gordon24fan (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

I, however, AM an admin. I strongly suggest that you immediately withdraw that comment for a couple of reasons. First, there's no such thing as a "hide" admin. Second, being an admin gives you no additional power in content disputes. - Philippe | Talk 00:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PP

I switch the PP to lock out new users and anons. I figure we're keeping a pretty close eye on him. I hate to lock even the most disruptive users from their own talk pages unless it's really necessary. – ClockworkSoul 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree - in this case, I think he's lost the right to edit even his own user page. But I won't wheel-war over it. :-) - Philippe | Talk 00:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Music of zelda

Could I get a copy of it? Unless you've already posted it somewhere, then I'll just go there... here is my sandbox. User:Judgesurreal777/About me/Sandbox. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, it should be in your sandbox. I recreated and moved it, so that the edit history was intact. - Philippe | Talk 03:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Do you mind succinctly explaining to me why Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually the wrong person to do that. I wasn't here then, but know of the aftermath. You might ask User:Allison or User:Newyorkbrad who tend to keep up with that more than I. I'll obviously review more tomorrow before making a formal "endorse" or "reject" recommendation. - Philippe | Talk 04:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User Allison has an empty history, and was only recently created--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he might have meant to say Alison. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I did, and thanks for the correction. - Philippe | Talk 11:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sally Kern

Do you think a link to the youtube video of her comments should be added as a ref? I've seen some articles (ex:Rosie O'Donnell) that use youtube videos as sources. I've never been sure about if that's permitted or if it's just something people do. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case, it's probably acceptable since it's the only available recording of what she said... we have to watch out for undue weight, but Sally's done a number of other heinous things as well... she's got a bill running right now to keep all books with sexual mention in separate sections of the library, for instance... - Philippe | Talk 11:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

She's like a mixture of Pleasantville and the people of Salem that want to burn books. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd call that a fair assessment of the Right Honorable Ms. Kern... - Philippe | Talk 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Hi. :) I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nl'akapxm Eagle Motorplex which was closed on March 11th but remained listed. Although it was probably a one-off mistake, I just wanted to point out to you in case you didn't know that the closure template on an AfD goes above the header. If it's put below, the bots don't read it properly. I've repaired this one; again, it's just in case you didn't know, for future reference. Cheers. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually do, I think I just had a brain-hiccup on that one. I appreciate you fixing my mistake! - Philippe | Talk 16:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm always happy when people fix mine. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket#2008031210016799

Adding teal ribbon to the awareness ribbon page. This is not the official ribbon for this disease, this ribbon is used by a group who go around the internet attacking a Non-Profit for this disease that does use the official ribbon already listed on this page. This same group has been removed from posting things on the disease page as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woerhn (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have requested referenced sources from the OTRS correspondent. If they can provide them, then I think the teal ribbon will stay. If not, I'll remove it myself. I truly don't understand why it's a problem to have two ribbons listed, especially when it appears both are in use... - Philippe | Talk 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know how to add to this subject except to edit it. 1 ribbon is official (voted on by families affected by the disease) the teal one was stolen from another group and claimed only to be used to harrass the first group to the point that a restraining order was taken out. It was only requested to be posted here after the official one was posted. It's confusing to families, organizations, awareness projects, etc, especially when the only intentions are to do harm. JMHO If you do a google search for the disease and awareness and restraining order, you will see what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woerhn (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rep Kern's Son

Um, I didn't add that. I put it on the talk page, that it was reported in a blog that he might be gay and if a WP:RS could be found, it could be added to the article, but I did not put it in the article. — AMK1211^talk! 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, of course. I misread the page history. Please accept my sincere apologies. - Philippe | Talk 02:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed Article for Deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series

Sorry for the delay in getting to you on this (I've been tied up with other stuff) but would you mind looking at the AfD you closed a couple of days ago in the title.

Having taken a brief interest in the article itself I wasn't sure that upon closure there was in fact a consensus to delete ther article.

Having looked at the comments of the users there were four votes for a deletion and four (inclding myself) in favour of keeping the article.

Just for ease I'll list the users I think held each view below (ignoring weak or strong for now as theere were equal numbers of weak keeps and deletes):

Delete

• RC-0722
• Renee
• Paddy Simcox
• A Link to the Past
• Eusebeus

Keep

• Bilby
• BigHairRef
• DGG
• Pixelface

With several comments and one merge notably with a merge becoming a keep after improvments and another being a merge with a leaning towards keeping.

Per the lead paragraph in my message would you mind looking again to see if there wasa consensus to delete? Thanks. BigHairRef | Talk 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks for the speedy reply. BigHairRef | Talk 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry just an additional point when you revisit it(I'm not trying to bump you honest!), I think it's common ground that there was not a consensus to merge and one user (CyberSach, sig <3 bunny) may have indicated that if the article was not merged he would support keeping, I thought this may have an effect on the number of people keeping going up to five (therefore 5 each) but with there still being no consensus. BigHairRef | Talk 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Missed a deletion pointer as the template they used didn't work, also JudgeSurreal didn't vote to keep (it was DGG) rather his last post seemed to suggest he was withdrawing his nomination as he didn't feel outright deletion was necessary IMO making him neutral. BigHairRef | Talk 21:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Congats on the election. It's not a big deal, even if you decide that there wasn't a consensus for deletion it's not like we've deleted the artilce on nuclear fusion. Whilst I'd rather it was back (for now at least) it's not going to be a loss to mankind for it to be delayed for a few days. BigHairRef | Talk 14:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

They call them croissants I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, I've made you this French pastry. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Don't let those cute smiles fool you, these bunnies are dangerous.

Sadly, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been abducted by the Easter Bunny's evil cousins, Frank and Billy Ray. But don't let that stop you from having a great Easter! Cheers. The one and only ----> AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Someone's going to have to sit down with George and spell that out for him. Or maybe he won't notice? - Philippe | Talk 09:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can picture him crying and stomping his feet, then telling Cheney to grab the infamous shotgun and hunt down those wabbits. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, there's an incredible double standard here - I shoot some old guy and I'm all "Mister Bad Guy". Cheney shoots some old guy and the old guy apologizes for getting in the way of the bullet!. For that reason alone, I'm convinced the man really does use Jedi mind tricks. For the first time in my life.... I'm jealous of Cheney. I want that kind of power. - Philippe | Talk 10:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, check out this comment. He says he "has the means." Empty threat or really empty threat? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

On the ol' "worry-meter", this one's not even moving the dial. Incredibly empty. Off to church... 6AM comes early. Happy Easter, friend. - Philippe | Talk 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RyRy5

Hello Philippe... hope all is well with you. Its been a while since I've brought something to your attention, but unfortunately I have something here which I honestly do not know how to handle. If you look here at RyRy5's response to my asking for her to leave me alone, you will see what I am talking about. I had told her previously that I had no wish to be adopted by her, and yet she continued to pester me. I got another message a few days ago, and you can see what I replied with. I dont know how the whole admin thing goes (its not something that is generally my cup of tea, so I havent looked into it), but I doubt that this the kind of thing that is taken lightly in those discussions. Let me know what you think. Thanks babe! Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've followed up with both RyRy and on your user talk page. :-) - Philippe | Talk 22:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will from now on be careful of what I say. I will also stop talking to Queerbubbles. I hope you forgive me.--RyRy5 talk 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do like reverting vandalism. I also like the rollback feature I was just given. And when I said that, I meant that I would ask her/him once more when I'm an admin. But that changed since what just happened. Any comments? --RyRy5 talk 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to become an admin so I can help out alot more at wikipedia with the extra tools. 2 people are willing to nominate me, but I turned them down because I wasn't ready. I have been at wikipedia for 1 month and 4 days and I already have 2450+ edits (counting deleted ones). I was asking Queerbubbles because I wanted to teach more people about wikipedia. That's why I created my Adoption Program, to teach more people about wikipedia. When I'm an admin, I also plan to teach as many people about wikipedia.--RyRy5 talk 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks babe, you rock. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 00:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Enigma sent a message on my talk page page and I guess you should look at it. He/She knows what I mean. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks.--RyRy5 talk 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikinews

Philippe/Archive2, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

• Wikinews:Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
• Wikinews:Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

• Wikinews:Introduction - overview of the site
• Wikinews:Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
• Wikinews:Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
• Wikinews:Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
• Wikinews:Contents - the contents page.

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

• Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
• The front page lead articles often need updating
• Developing stories need finishing and publishing
• Discussions need your input
• Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
• And of course, stories need writing!

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Declined speedy deletion of Scott Larned

Thank you for your message on my talk page about the above. So the concept that notability is not inherited does not apply to band members? I also found this statement on WP:Band:

Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band

Larned does not appear to be notable for any other reason than being a member of a notable band. Your thoughts please. Thank you for your time. – ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the user talk.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And I thank you for your response!  – ukexpat (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. - Philippe | Talk 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Declined CSD of National Federation of Republican Women (COPYVIO)

You declined my CSD nomination of National Federation of Republican Women with the note that it "asserts notability". It does, but the CSD was for copyvio. The creator claims on the talk page that they are the Communications Director, but until copyright waiver has been settled through the proper procedure (which I have pointed them at) shouldn't this article be deleted? Anyone could claim to be the copyright holder. Isn't that why we have the formal procedure? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph is copypasted from http://www.nfrw.org/ (see directly under "Welcome to...") and article creator admits full copyvio on article talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I?

I think you remember me from that incident with Queerbubbles. I've been trying to change the way I talk to people. I'm still very sorry for what I did and if I worried him/her. I was wondering if I could apologize to Queerbubbles. If you let me, I won't give her a threat or anything. And if I do, you can do whatever you intend to do to me. I will also mention that you gave me the aproval to apologize. Well, can I?--RyRy5 talk 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should really do that... you already apologized on Queerbubbles' userpage, and I think that's sufficient. How about if we just let it go? It's probably better to let it die, though I appreciate your wanting to do it. - Philippe | Talk 19:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it's been a while but I just feel so bad. Thanks anyway.--RyRy5 talk 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Shall I Remove Then?

I triple-checked the username policy, and asked an admin on this, but I don't want to a accidentally look rash again. -WarthogDemon 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd remove it. From WP:USERNAME:

Contributors are welcome to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet, but should bear in mind that scripts of non-Latin languages (such as Arabic, Cyrillic, Chinese, Greek or Japanese) are illegible to most contributors to the English Wikipedia. To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with such usernames are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature and provide a corresponding redirect to their user page.

In this case, we can encourage, but my feel is that the policy specifically does not restrict it. - Philippe | Talk 03:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Now if only I can block myself for punishment - wait, blocks aren't supposed to be used as punishment. Argh. -WarthogDemon 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ain't nothin to be punished for. Non-latin has been a bit of a kerfluffle for as long as I've been on-wiki. I've seen it go both directions, and the only reason I really think it got settled was that SUL was coming down the pike and that would really be an issue. Thanks for all that you do! I see your name everywhere. - Philippe | Talk 03:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, now that's crazy timing! Curious though, do you mean you were voting right when I made the stop at WP:UAA or when I came by your talk page? =) -WarthogDemon 03:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was reading through the RFA page when I saw that UAA was backlogged, so I took a break to deal with those and saw your name. So I dealt with that issue and then went back to UAA and !voted. :-) Fortuitous timing, to say the least. I was typing my "neutral" statement when I went to UAA. (By the way, I think that should the RFA pass, you should really work with an admin who's been around for a while on speedies for the first 25-50 that you do... there are some valid concerns there... but the way that you're willing to take input outweighs them in my mind.) - Philippe | Talk 03:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I most likely shall do that. :) Thanks! -WarthogDemon 04:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I was going to ask an admin about that question. I knew it seemed wrong. Also, I think I can have the privilege to adopt. Anybody can adopt as long as they have over 500 edits. If you think I am not ready to adopt, then that is your opinion. To be honest, I don't like you trying to tell me not to adopt (or suggesting). I can handle on my own. I'm not trying to be mean, but I know what I am doing. I was going to ask an admin and alert Axecution. I'm also happy about the review you gave me, and don't worry, I will try to mature into a experienced user. Thanks and I hope you understand.--RyRy5 talk 06:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RyRy, in response to your comment on my talk page; I'm sorry to have offended you, but stand by my statements. I honestly don't believe you should be testing on statements that you don't understand. You scored it wrong - regardless of whether you planned to check on it later, you still told an adoptee that was a correct statement when it wasn't. I don't mean to seem hostile, but the fact is that you gave incorrect information on a core policy. Block vs Ban comes up in almost every RFA.

My concern with you adopting has nothing to do with how many edits you have (you clearly qualify there), but with "time in service". I just don't think you know our policies well enough. I'm going to keep an eye on your adoption page in hopes that you'll prove me wrong. If you insist on continuing, I want you to commit to double and triple checking answers. You need to understand the difference between block and ban, and it's critical that you not test on any policies that you don't know inside and out. It's going to take a lot of homework on your part. Adopting is not easy, which is why many people choose to adopt only one person at a time.

I'm afraid that you're putting a lot of emphasis on edit count, and the community as a whole has said strongly that we really care more about length of time with us and understanding of policies. My advice to you is to forget about edit count for a while. Do some well-rounded (mainspace) work. Improve articles. Step away from the userspace for a while. It will be a serious hinderance when you run for RfA.

I'm afraid that you're headed for a position where the community may try to intervene. If you continue to give incorrect information, it's possible (I've seen it done) that the community will MFD your adoption program and force you to stop. I'm trying to divert you before it gets there.

Unfortunately, my role as admin sometimes makes me the bad guy. This is one of those times. You could potentially do a lot of damage to your adoptees by giving them incorrect information. It confuses people, and they can fail RFAs over block vs ban.

PLEASE take this into account. Find a mentor who can check your answers and look over your lessons before you pass them on. There is still a way to resolve this, but you're going to have to work at it.

I truly do wish you the best. I'm sorry if you feel I'm being harsh, that's not my intent. My intent is to stop you from a path that will hurt you in the long run with your declared goal. - Philippe | Talk 16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have my most trusted admin check the tests if in doubt. I have also planned to make at least 1500+ mainspace edits before I try RFA . I only have 300+ mainspace edits. I ussually click on random article, and whatever article I get, I plan to edit it once, and I continue the process. I have even made a plan to try very hard to improve the article, Roger Clemens, into at least, Good Article Status and many other Red Sox articles. Maybe not GA, but just improving.

I know I have way to many adoptees, but I always try to help out. 3 of my adoptees are previously inactive. I will double check the tests each time. I would also like you to tell me if I am doing good or bad with the program. I appreciate you trying to help me become a better editer. Thanks. BTW, I plan to ask my most trusted and experienced users to adopt some of my adoptees. They would be co-adopters.--RyRy5 talk 17:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Epica

Hi there. I noticed you have protected the Epica page because of edit war. I believe you might be mistaken in that regard since there's no edit war currently ongoing at the article page. There was only one vandal who was repeatedly making reverts but that vandal is already serving a 72 hrs ban because of that. That vandal's last edit was a few days ago and there hasn't been any edits since then by anyone that would indicate to me an ongoing edit war. So could you please unprotect the page so that the rest of us can work on it? If the vandal returns, I can let you know if you wish but I believe a couple of other admins are already watching him. Cheers. --Bardin (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is unprotected. ;-) - Philippe | Talk 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bardin (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Issue Which Has Me Irked

I dont know if you've noticed, but User:Nothing444 has started up an adoption program, much in the realm of Ry. See here. As with Ry, they dont have much mainspace edits, however, the major issues is that Nothing has actually been blocked recently. I hate being a busybody... but would also hate being a new user who was unknowingly adopted by someone who has had recent issues with admins. That association might be bad in the future. I just want to bring this to your attention. You're a doll, keep up the good work! Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick addition... this block has also "disappeared" from this user's archive. Unless you do some serious digging (which I did, you cant find the discussion anywhere. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

I tried warning Nothing444 in the past but he just didn't listen, as well. Not to intrude in the conversation with Queerbubbles, but I thought he deleted the block from his archive. Also, I may close down my adoption program in a few days or so. I'm not sure. I was thinking of closing down when my adoptees I have right now graduate.--RyRy5 talk 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you had - wisely - tried to dissuade Nothing444. That was a good decision. Removing a block from an archive doesn't get rid of it - it still remains in the block log and (for admins) in Special:BlockIP. - Philippe | Talk 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know. I was there when Nothing444 was blocked. I then saw how Nothing was going to change. He has changed actually. He's just needs more experience.--RyRy5 talk 22:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think that he'll be fine. But he's over-eager and really needs to take some time to get to know the policies and the project better. I'll happily revisit it with an open mind in 6 months. - Philippe | Talk 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that he has been over-eager. But in this case, he's a little too over eager. He even invited everyone he welcomed to wikipedia, to join his mentorship. I'll try to find an example later. But do you think I'm over eager in my program?--RyRy5 talk 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to draw parallels between two separate issues, but, yes, I think you've been a bit aggressive in recruiting. I like the fact that you're talking about slowing down or potentially even shutting down until you have more experience. That shows a maturity of judgment. - Philippe | Talk 22:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll plan to shut down tests and possibly classes. I may just start again with my normal plan, answering questions that adoptees ask me. I have also stopped adopting. I will only stick with the ones I have now. I will not really shut down, just like you said, I will slow it down. Maybe, 1 test every 2-3 weeks is OK. Actually, how do you think I should slow it down, but not shut it down?--RyRy5 talk 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I rather like the idea of a slow down. There's nothing wrong with answering questions and even in carefully preparing lessons that they can read through and practice. Those are all good things. But the most important thing about mentorship and adoption is to provide feedback. If they don't understand something, don't just say it's wrong - or give them zero points for it - but help them understand what's the RIGHT thing is. I think I'd start by going through the five pillars one at a time and making sure that everyone understands them. I also think that a daily lesson schedule is probably a bit much for most people to keep up with. I hope that gives you some ideas. - Philippe | Talk 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I do tell them what and why they got something wrong. It's just that, most of them pass with nothing wrong. Visit this for the tests of my best student (he will be graduating in a week or so). The others are either inactive or they told me they know why and how they got an answer wrong, but I do make sure they know it by testing them on the same answers and teaching them personally. And the daily schedule, I am waiting for the approval of my bot, when it's done, it will tell my students when class is ready. 1 problem is that, most adoptees aren't active all the time so they could miss class. Any comments?--RyRy5 talk 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

I have been looking foward towards this for so long. Besides, I'm not going to harm the users. I will mentor them through wikipedia. Believe me, I'm doing this for the benefit of wikipedia. You can check up on me all you want to see if I'm not misleading them, but you'll see that I mentor new users in perfection. I love helping new users out. You have no idea what I'll do to help Wikipedia, and its new users. Nothing444 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not qualified to adopt. The adopt a user program has established guidelines, and they're good ones. I'm sorry, but you'll need to try to find another way to help out. I recommend monitoring the help desk, etc. I'm holding firm on this one. - Philippe | Talk 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense Nothing444, but when I heard about your mentorship, I didn't think you were ready. Sure you have been here for 9 months, but you have been only active for 1 month total. That's why I may close down my program for a while.--RyRy5 talk 21:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I Don't remember removing blovk from the archive 2. I see this as unfair. I have been waiting so long, and I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really want to do this. Please just give me a chance. Nothing444 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my final word on this matter: try again in six months. If you want another opinion, you may post to the administrator's noticeboard and ask there, but I would wager cold hard cash that you'll not find agreement there. There are other ways to help out the encyclopedia. Why not monitor the help desk? You can still help new users. - Philippe | Talk 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Philippe. I wanted you to check my responce on User:Axecution's talkpage. He asked me what is vandalism but I just wanted you to make sure. Thanks.RyRy5 talk 16:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just wanted you to check. Also, if you revert an article, is that a mainspace edit?--RyRy5 talk 18:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, about the adoption program, I have decided only to give out tests each 2-3 weeks. I have also decided to only have 4-5 teachers (including me). I am asking if you would like to become a teacher since your an admin. Any questions?--RyRy5 talk 21:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to ask all my adoptees if they want tests at all. I don't want them to feel uncomfortable with tests. I appreciate you saying all that, and I know how busy you are. I hope you can look over the program here and then, just to make sure it's in good shape. Like I said, I'm trying to slow it down. Thank you very much for your kindness.--RyRy5 talk 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

William Hunter (statistician)

Hi. I saw in this edit, that you used the {{prod}} template with a stated reason of lack of notability. Did you know about the {{prod-nn}} template that you could have used instead? It makes some of the issues of that type of proposed deletion clearer. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sig

All yours mate and thanks. Rgoodermote  00:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tests

I have left a notice on all my active adoptees talkpages. It askes if they want to reciece tests every so often or not. I also reached my 4000th edit today and my 500th mainspace edit. I have done a ton of reverting today. Any comments?--RyRy5 talk 00:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course everyone can join. There has never been an oppose in voting. All members pass 100%. It's just for fun. I also read the notice below. What did I do wrong?--RyRy5 talk 00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't start the whole voting thing. I just copied the idea of it. And I will stop asking for barnstars. I just asked for one because others have asked too. I'll try to dig up one from the user's archive if you want. Thnaks for your comments by the way. I'll be gone tommorrow, so I hope everything is in good hands. I'll talk to you in April. Cheers.--RyRy5 talk 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I wasn't to proud of it either. You should see that above the barnstar I said "Not the work of a WikiGnome, but" and then added the barnstar. But he has been reverting vandalism quite often. He is definetly not a WikiGnome, and he has to work on it. He should go to the award center if he wants to get abarnstar that badly. Nothing444 00:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

A message from WarthogDemon.

Korean Fir I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with 61 support, 25 oppose, and 4 neutral. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^

Tibet

I think you may have meant to fully protect this article, as you added a protection template and marked the request as "fully protected" on WP:RPP, but I think you forgot to hit the prot-switch. - auburnpilot talk 05:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah, humbug! Thanks, I'll fix it now. - Philippe 05:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Dear Phillipe,

Could you explain why you put in the pp-prot template in this article just moments ago? While it is a current events article of a controversial nature, we weren't having an edit war just now. Perhaps the pace of changes (which, again, is not excessive, comparing to what it can be) misled you? Or, is this an WP:OTRS issue? I did not find any justification on the article talk page and you don't appear to have made any edits in this matter anywhere else that I can see.

Yes, earlier today, we had one of our chronic troublemakers at last get a 24-hour reprieve from editing, but since that time all has been going forward smoothly, for now anyway. The article certainly has merited full protection at various points not long ago, and certainly is likely in the future, but for the present, things are calm. There is no outstanding POV issue, other than the disruptive interpretations/reverts made some time ago (and might I add, chronically, and with false edit summaries) by the user serving his timeout. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 05:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that this is another situation where my protection script backfired, so in the end, it wasn't I who did the protection. But to answer your question, I was answering a protection request at RFPP.  :-) - Philippe 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Philippe,

I am awre that the page protection which you imposed is scheduled to run out on April 3, albeit the notice imposed on your behalf by another admin does not stipulate a date. Unfortunately, we have been unable to reach consensus on any outstanding contested issue. User:Tocino, who was blocked recently for 24 hours for edit warring, effecting forcible reverts, has not expressed any desire to act within consensus; if anything, he has announced intent to make fixes one-sidedly once the protection is lifted. User:Avala, when asked expressly questions on 6 points of editorial contention, agreed on one, expressed ambivalence or lack of care on another, and disagreed on four. Given this situation, I think the likelihood of forcible reverts is very high. Users don't agree on basic facts such as, does Uruguay's position in the Spanish-language source read "has not recognized" (as it does in the Spanish original) or "will not recognize") as summarized by User:Avala in the English synopsis used in the article. If I were an admin, I would extend the page protection some longer. Of the edit protect requests outstanding on the talk page, none is critical. No country has recognized Kosovo in the interim and the map used presently in the articl needs no updating at present. With concern, --Mareklug ^talk 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

Hey, it looks like you tagged it for protection, but did not actually protect it. Mistake? ;) Tiptoety ^talk 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

Hi Philippe, I've relisted this article for protection--you put a 2-week tag on the article, but didn't actually protect it. I've found that once the tag goes on, nobody looks at additional comments, so I listed it a bit dramatically--not intending any criticism of you. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh, is there an echo in here? :) Tiptoety ^talk 14:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was funny--we both created new topics with the same header at the same time, and it didn't pop up as an edit conflict b/c they were separate headers. Darkspots (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Philippe seems to have a broken protection switch, so I went ahead and protected the articles he intended to protect last night (for the same durations). Change as needed. - auburnpilot talk 14:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A broken protection button? Never heard of that before. Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a busted script. I was tryin it out, and it appears to not be so good. :-) Thanks for catching it! - Philippe 18:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I can has mop?

Hi Philippe/Archive2! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3). I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Bill Gates

I requested an unprotection for Bill Gates today, and you unprotected it. I did to because I thought all articles that went through WP:FAC had to be unprotected first. Turns out I assumed wrongly. So, could you please re-add the semiprotection, since as you can see, the article has been vandalized already after you unprotected it. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded on user talk. - Philippe 21:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection to International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Hello Philippe. Could you please provide some feedback regarding my comment at AuburnPilot's talk page? Thanks. Regards, Húsönd 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. :-) - Philippe 01:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kids and namespaces

Hey, I noticed your comment about trying to get RyRy5 to edit mainspace rather than userspace. I understand where you're coming from, but I have seen this backfire before. This issue was discussed a bit at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Angel David. I have since concluded that in cases like this, having these kids play around in userspace is preferable to having them run amok in article space. Is an 11-year-old likely to be able to make competent edits? Probably not, so let's keep them in a place where they can do no real harm. Friday (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy this to Friday's talk page too... but the problem with Ry isn't so much that he's editing the crap out of the namespace... but that he's trying to adopt people. Aggressively, in some cases (see March archive)... Philippe and others are suggesting mainspace because of Ry's wish to try to become an admin in the very near future. His adoption program has on one occasion given out iffy information, and the issue is that while yes, he cant do any harm in the namespace... he (as well as Nothing444) are giving new, possibly older, wikipedians bad info. And thats doing harm. Anyawy... thats my two cent summary of Ry and the issues. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Xposted to Friday's as well: I agree with this summary, with one clarification. I encourage RyRy to contribute in the mainspace not just because he wants to be an admin but because it's A Good Thing. That's what we do here: we write an encyclopedia. - Philippe 18:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to delete Noelle Brooks

It looks like you signed off on the debate but did not delete the page.Nrswanson (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure does, doesn't it? Thanks for catching it. It's deleted now. - Philippe 03:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC

WP:AN#Cabals, part 2. There's an RFC in the making. Just notifying you in case you don't check AN, as I'd like to have the entire community (or at least a lot of opinions) in this. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Moorcroft

Hi, you closed the above article as 'delete' on April 1st but it is still there..it hasn't been deleted. Dreamspy (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's gone now. :-) - Philippe 16:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism needs reverting

Recent edits to Central Bedeque, Prince Edward Island need reverting. Unfortunately, there's more than one edit, and I'm not sure how to achieve this. Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. :-) - Philippe 17:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Monobook

There is still a problem. This is User:RyRyBot. Please delete popups too. Thanks.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy?} 17:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, problem solved. So, what do you think of only keeping the classroom and then stop testing? I don't think there should be other teachers besides me at the classroom. What do you think?--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy?} 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I found that out already. Well, I will keep working hard, even without the program. Cheers.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:adoption

We weren't talking about the classroom! Know what's going on before you put out a random comment, please. No offense. Well, you see, I just adopted this new guy. A couple days after I did, he tried to abandon me.-- Barkjon  02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. The possessiveness of that comment sincerely disturbs me. he's not "abandoning you", he's requesting another adopter. Respect that. - Philippe 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So, do I get to keep the adoptee? I do feel sad that Taj wanted to somewhat abandon Barkjon.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>. RyRy, I think the mature thing to do would be to refer Taj to the adoption program. I don't think you're ready to adopt. I think that came through clearly in the community's discussion. I'm afraid that folks are nearing the point where you'll be subject to an RFC if you pick up any more adoptees. - Philippe 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but what about the adoptees(2) I already have?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, RyRy, at this point, I think that's your call. I can only tell you what I would do if it were me. I would refer them to the adoption program, but in all fairness, I can't tell you to do that unilaterally. I think that if we were to poll the community, that's what they'd want you to do, but it's not my call. - Philippe 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll stick with 2 adoptees tops. So, how do you like my userpage & talkpage(don't worry, I'v been editing in the mainspace. I have 550+ mainspace edits)?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I may consider taking part. Thanks for your comments, I will continue mainspace editing. Cheers.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 03:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for making you mad. I do think I'm ready to take on adoptees. That's just the best way I knew to revert vandalism. And I want my adoptees to be very good. And how can I teach them the best way to revert vandalism if I don't know it? I don't really want to have and RfC. I promise I'll stop teaching people like that. But a lot of people in Wikipedia agree with me that IP's do the most vandalism. But, I agree that they do do a big bit of good editing.-- Barkjon  02:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Response:I'm one of the few users who didn't start as an IP. I do still want to do the Adopt-a-User program. Trust me, I know quite a bit in Wikipedia. I also am the manager of the Club Penguin Wiki. That's where I learned most of my stuff that I put into user in Wikipedia. Ya, I'll teach my knew adoptees how to install anti-vandalism tools instead of my bad ways.-- Barkjon  02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I won't teach my newest two adoptees to use those tools yet. I've already taught one (Tajtheman).-- Barkjon  02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I can't really go back to me record. My adopter (though I think he was the bets one a guy could ask for) didn't teach me much. He rarely gave me tips. I pretty much just learned everythink on my own. But I will train more before I give more tips. Thanks. No hard feelings?-- Barkjon  02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I just wanted to tell you I have made 615+ mainspace edits. I just don't want you to think I'm only editing in the userspace.RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give you an update every so often. I'll ask if I have any questions. Cheers.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an update. I have 650+ mainspace edits, out of my about 4600 edits.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tajtheman said he wanted me to adopt him, remember. Should I accept? I'm asking because of our recent discussion.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait! I think he was blocked, do you mind checking?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well. I hope you do well on your break for the next 2 days. I will still give you updates. Also, can you check this Adoption Program (not mine). I may put it for MFD if it doesn't do well. Not that I'm jealous, it's just that I don't want the same thing to happen.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know it was already on MFD. I also found 2 other programs related to mine. May I show you?RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Michael Lacey

Can you please explain to me how there was no consensus to delete? Eight editors, excluding myself expressed a delete opinion, and 3 expressed a keep opinion. Of those three who said keep, one was the article creator and one other was an SPA who only contributed to this AfD. That looks like a clear delete decision to me. Polly (Parrot) 02:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded on Polly's talk. - Philippe 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As did I. :) DarkAudit (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I just received an email from the Chapter Adminstrator of the Capital/Chesapeake Bay branch of the NATAS. They were able to confirm that Mr Lacey did not win the Emmy as he claimed, but was instead given a Production Certificate by the show's producers for working on the show. DarkAudit (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that, Mr. Lacey is non-notable. I'll deal with deletion. - Philippe 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is Adam Pennybacker the one who nominated Mr. Lacey for an article. Mr. Lacey was "honored" as stated several times above for 2 Emmy Production Certficates, and it is my understanding a higher commendation then the common Emmy trophy. So the value of the 2 Production Certificates from the Regional Emmy Awards, from what I understand, is more notable than the Emmy trophy for an actor. Let me know if this is true. I would also like to know the contact person and obtain evidence through the mail from this branch. If the Emmy Production Certificates are more notable than the Regional Emmy Awards, what is the next step to proceed? Kind regards, Adam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs)

You understand incorrectly. The certificates were from the station, not from NATAS, so they would be much less notable than an Emmy. according to the Chapter Administrator, Mr. Lacey has not been honored in any way by NATAS. DarkAudit (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption Related Programs. MFD?

Here are what I found:

• User:Macys123/Adoptee classroom
• User:Tiptoety/Adoption

If you think any of these should be put on MFD. I would like to add it there, as my first/second request. Comments?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks, RyRy- I'll take a look at them as I get a moment. I would say that I have a very high level of confidence in Tiptoety, but have no interaction that I can remember with macys123.  :-) - Philippe 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto (me too).--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 03:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Odette Krimpn AfD Question

Hi! Still learning here and I have a question. Why would this AfD not be a straight keep? There was evidence of RS coverage and the only delete was the nom. I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to learn more. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep that answers my question just fine. Only 4 different answers from 3 admins? ;) Enjoy your travels TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing of Savoy, Nick

Could you please explain your No consensus closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savoy, Nick. I ask not to challenge your decision but to try to educate myself about the thought processes behind AFD closures. I understand that AFD decisions are not votes, that they are based on the weight of the arguments. So I assume that you did not count the five separate Keep !votes of Camera123456. What I saw was multiple Delete !votes based on policy, and a handful of Keep !votes based on ILIKEIT. I do see two Keeps based on an assertion of notability but without any references to verify notability. So I'm confused as to how that comes out to No consensus and I would like to better understand how the process works. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wowzers, all I can say about that one is that I totally intended to close it as delete. I'm not sure whether I hit the wrong button on my script or what. That one is a clear delete, thanks for calling it to my attention. - Philippe 09:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was my mistake and wondered where I went wrong. I was a bit diffident to ask you about it but honestly wanted to learn from my mistake. I'm glad it was just a glitch. Sbowers3 (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing of Aaron Michael Lacey

I was surpised to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Michael Lacey closed as no concensus. The only keep opinions ventured were from user:AMLFILMS which despite the claims otherwise, seems ot be very likely to be the subject himself, another SPA, and a single established editor who ventured a keep opinion without any real argument as for why the individual meets notability. On the deletion side, it seems the arguments put forth were very well-grounded. Could you please review your decision, and explain how you arrived at a no concensus? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I missed the request from another editor earlier in the talk. I've read the response there, and am satified with the answer. Sorry for the bother. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtual-OS

Greetings Philippe, could you please "Userfy" the deleted content from the "Virtual-OS" article to my userspace? I hope to rewrite the article once additional information is published but in the meantime I don't want to lose the original technical overviews and news references. Are you positive you've interpreted the debate correctly? The result is rather surprising, although I'm not really here to dispute your decision. I just want to preserve the content for future reference. Thank you. Avant Destiny (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's userfied to User:Avant_Destiny/Virtual-OSuserfied. :-) - Philippe 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you have your hands full at the moment, feel free to take your time but you're going to have to try that again because it didn't take to well. You can overwrite the article at User:Avant_Destiny/Virtual-OS as this is just my attempt to recreate the article from the google cache. Unfortunately I'm not to good with templates yet (so my version looks bad), and it doesn't credit the original editors for their contributions. Thanks again. Avant Destiny (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I gave it another go. It's at User:Avant_Destiny/Virtual-OS now. :-) - Philippe 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sundowner

I may be prejudiced since I initiated the AfD, but it looks to me like a clear consensus to delete all but the Sundowner wind section of Sundowner, to me. Corvus cornix_talk 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking about listing Sundowner at WP:DRV, but I wanted your input first. Corvus cornix_talk 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've completely rewritten the page as a disambig page and set up disambiguating redirects as there are actual articles. The Mazda truck and Beechcraft plane are known under other names so I set up redirects to point to the articles. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Whpq's edits, but I will also create a Sundowner (wind) article from what was there before. Corvus cornix_talk 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK by me. I'm not emotionally invested in it. :-) - Philippe 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AWISSENET

concerning my article for AWISSENET, I would appreciate if you moved it to my user page so that it is preserved in someway. May be at a later stage when the concept becomes more mature I will be able to modify it so that it gains its position in wikipedia.Nprigour (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's now at User:Nprigour/AWISSENET. :-) - Philippe 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

wow you're obviously A dumbass because i have nothing to do with Hillsong Unoted and somehow thats advertisement. You should look them up beccause they are quite notable. The I heart revolution should not have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanu9000 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, with social skills like that, it's a wonder I'm not tripping over myself to help you... - Philippe 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing vs relisting

I've been involved in at least three recent AfDs where only one or two others had weighed in with an endorsement or even a comment, and the discussion was closed as no consensus instead of being relisted.

Since more eyes are on the current day's AfD log, wouldn't it be better to relist a discussion that's evenly split between just a couple of editors, rather than close it with no decision? DarkAudit (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That depends. Yes, if it's likely that it'll get more eyes on it. In some cases, it's unlikely that anyone else will comment, and in those cases some administrators (myself included) will close it as no consensus. So, it really depends on the situation. - Philippe 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice & Offer

I have 670 mainspace edits with 4500 undeleted edits out of my 4740 total edits. I have recieved an offer for a co-coach but I made it unofficial because I would like you to admin coach me. Accept? Also, I may consider making Roger Clemens to a GA status. Do you think it's ready?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

RyRy, that's quite an honor, and I appreciate your confidence in me. At this point, though, I can't take on ANYTHING else until after the Wikimedia Board of Trustees election, which will be in July. So, if you want to get started before that, I probably can't help you out, though I could recommend a few REALLY good people to you. I think making Roger Clemens go to GA is a good step. I haven't reviewed it in depth, so I can't really comment about it, but I'll try to look at it when I get back home (still in San Francisco). - Philippe 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco? I see Philippe is making the pilgrimage to our version of Mecca. We pray in the direction of SF 5 times a day. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That made me pee a little from the laughing. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 19:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle 4! ;-) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<grin> Yeah, Mecca it is. Plus, I got to see the WMF office and meet several of the board members and staff members. Yeah, I'm a geek. Unfortunately, now I'm a geek stuck in San Francisco (awwwww) because the MD-80s in American's fleet were grounded. So, I'm suffering through in the Admiral's Club at SFO sucking down vodka-7 like it's going out of style. I'm afraid they might run out. - Philippe 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah so I don't think I can offer you any sympathy...only jealousy. Drink up!! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Be sympathetic. I'm here until 11:30... Pacific. - Philippe 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well the waiting I can sympathize with. The vodka and Admiral's Club, not so much. :P Actually, I prefer Jägerbombs and pomegranate martinis. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Well, can you give me a list of those REALLY good admins for me like you said? Thanks.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded on RyRy's talk with five names. If those don't work, I'll find more. :-) - Philippe 02:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. What do you think of User:nousernamesleft?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion. I've had no interactions with him/her. - Philippe 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I may accept the user I gave you. Oh, and do you think my signature is to big? I really think it's OK.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 03:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

I note that you revised your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savoy, Nick. But in the mean time I had moved the article to Nick Savoy - all you deleted was a redirect!

You may have noticed my discussions with Camera123456. Fact is I find the whole "seduction community" totally boring - hopelessly sexist - just men who think they are God's gift congratulating themselves. So I don't really care what you do with Nick Savoy but my inclination was to go with your first decision: keep Nick Savoy, delete Love Systems. My view was swayed by WoodenBuddha, a curious long-established single-purpose account, who voted for one and not the other. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to any potential admins out there: double check what you're actually deleting. It might have changed from one day to the next (validly!). I've deleted it. I still think it's actually nn. Thanks for letting me know. - Philippe 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maximum-Football

I noted you declined to provide any level of protection for that article or for the developer. The developer did not create the page, however he spends too much time having to go back to the article and revert blatant vandalism. While it may not seem like a high level to you compared to other articles, it's enough to warrant one of two actions. Lock the article or remove it completely. I consider this vandalsem a personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diverman2008 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism is not, in fact, a personal attack. It's unsourced, and uncited, and contrary, but it's not a personal attack - at least not any that I've seen. I'd be happy to look at diffs if you think you can substantiate that claim. The way to request that an article be removed is through WP:AFD. - Philippe 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Love Systems

Hi! Out of curiosity, why did you delete the Nick Savoy page that I edited? The AfD discussion led to it being kept? Camera123456 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please comment

Please comment to my recent message about 2-3 sections above this one. I have reached my 700th mainspace edit. I am working really hard to contribute more constructivly at wikipedia.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll update my mainspace to 730+.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Horribly blog-like post

So, I've just returned from San Francisco, and thought I'd share my experiences and observations.

Let's make this clear up front: I was in San Francisco for an unrelated commitment and was not simply there for Wikipedia purposes. But it was a pleasant coincidence that I happened to be there while the Board of Trustees was meeting. The result was that I got to see the new Wikimedia Foundation offices and meet staff, board, and other volunteers.

I'm happy to say that there was a high level of interest in the election, from all parties concerned: Board members, staff, and volunteers. There were intelligent questions, and an honest understanding that there were things I couldn't answer, because they're not published, public, or even decided yet (in some cases).

It was a delight to finally meet Jan-Bart, Anthere, Erik, Jimmy, Cary, Domas, Sue, Kat, Phoebe, and Mike (my apologies to any whom I have failed to include!). I was thrilled with the honest-to-god-real-live Barnstar that Kat (Mindspillage) gave me as a nice token. I'll try to post a picture of that on my userpage, alone with the typical "zOMG i met Jimbo!" picture that comes with any Wikimedia event.

On the whole, what a delightful couple of hours spent in the new Wikimedia office. The office is really neat - funky, high-tech loft. It's only a couple of minutes from the Tenderloin, and Market Street, so it's fairly conveniently located, though on a quiet street that neither of two cab drivers had ever heard of. Good thing I took my GPS. It's definitely not the shiny pillar of all that is new and glamorous about San Francisco, but it's an appropriately nice open space for an organization that watches its pennies.

All that said, it was good for me, as a Wikimedian, to spend some time with other wikimedians. Sometimes it feels a little isolated out here in the hinterlands. - Philippe 22:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you had a good time. Me be jealous! :-) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Philippe... you are such a ridiculous dork! Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 23:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to have you back. I'll keep you updated.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 00:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy RyRy5's 5000th Edit

Happy RyRy5's 5000th Edit! This edit is my 5000th edit! Every time I reach another 1000 edits, I celebrate it on a talkpage of someone I know who has helped me the most through my last 1000 edits. Well, I am happy to host my Every 1000th Party here! Thanks.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 00:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and 750+ mainspace edits. I'm trying to make more major edits from now on.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 02:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got a new adoptee. Remember, I am only keeping 2 adoptees or lower. Feel free to check on my adoption teaching often.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I should really offer to adopt since what just happened. I made it unofficial. I will from now on adopt only if someone asks me too. Cheers.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 00:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philippe

Long time no chat. How are you and Casey doing? I am well. I am dropping a note because I was wondering if it would be possible to protect the Lois Lowry page for a longer period of time or even better a permanent block of anonymous IP addresses. There is already more vandalism being done and the protection has been gone for lesss than a day.Nrswanson (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nathan! Good to hear from you. Casey and I are well. I'm going to keep a close eye on the Lois Lowry page, but it's a little early to re-protect it. Generally, protection requires multiple vandalism events on the same day from different users/IPs, and I'm not seeing that yet. But if it does happen, let me know. I issued a warning to the one that vandalised it yesterday though. - Philippe 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Myopia Page

Recently deleted page for band Myopia would still qualify for notability under criteria #1 and #7 on WP:MUSIC There is a documentary via youtube of the band's history as a premiere of their genre in the local scene. [18] The article is akin in nature to NetherealKingfelagund3211 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk. - Philippe 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can provide these [19] [20] though the band members could likely provide more. The youtube video additonally was produced by WQAQ, the college radio of Quinnipiac university.Kingfelagund3211 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The barnstar is now proudly being displayed on my userpage. :) By the way, I have one question: At times I would report registered users to WP:AIV who, say, had two or three vandal edits but not a final warning and they would be removed without being blocked. I thought that with accounts it is acceptable to block them without issuing all the warnings if their only contribs are vandalism, but if I'm wrong and should only ever report users who've received a final warning please let me know.--Urban Rose 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding on your talk. :-) - Philippe 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice

800+ mainspace edits. I think I have made over 100-150+ contributes to the WP:AFD.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 05:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Philippe. I think (and somebody else) I have been giving you updates of my work a little to much. I think it would be better if you just looked at the userboxes of my mainspace edits and contributions. But I will still give you updates. Probably 2 times a week, unless I have something very important I have to tell you that is related to my updates. Comments?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 14:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Thank you for your notice. :) I've since posted a response. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Misunderstanding

Hello. Nice to see you back and being active. I understand what you mean. But giving up 5 adoptees was really hard. I think I am experienced enough to have at least 2 adoptees. I know you don't want me to have any, but I would just like to see how this adoption goes. If I can handle having 2 adoptees without making any major mistakes until say, May, then I think I have proven myself then. Any comments?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that I feel that what I said was misrepresented. I know you didn't do it deliberately, but as an admin, one of the things that people pay attention to is my judgment, and I don't want people to think that I "authorized" (something I'm not able to do) you to have two adoptees (something I'm not inclined to do). That may cast doubts upon my judgment in the eyes of other people, so I want to be very clear about what exactly I said. I'm not going to cut any prejudicial deals with you: I won't enter into any agreements that include the words "if" or "then", because any number of circumstances may preclude those agreements and I won't be held to them.

Please don't tell anyone that I said it was okay for you to have two adoptees, because it is my stated position that you should give them all up, for their good and for yours.

I think you're on the right track, but you're just not there yet. No big deal, because I was a contributor here for almost a year before I would have even considered adopting. - Philippe 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page.--Ryan (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletions into redirects

Hello! :) In March, Shedu (Dungeons & Dragons) was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974-1976), which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history?

Also, if you are amenable to it, I would like Kopru restored and redirected to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977-1999), which was deleted at the same time as Shedu under the same circumstances. Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense to me. As I recall, that was one of the options raised at the time. I think it's a good one, and have done so. - Philippe 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated!  :) BOZ (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You figured me out.  :) Although my main purpose was to keep further articles from getting deleted - undeleting a few was just a nice side bonus that I figured out along the way! And thanks for the barnstar - my first legitimate one! BOZ (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As a result, AFDs like Athach are likely to end that way from now on - hopefully making them futile. :) We're in the process of deciding which articles should be merged into those lists, and I don't see why editors working together can't just do that instead of resorting to things like AFD discussions. BOZ (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again - I figured that's what you were thinking. :) BOZ (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! :) Would you also mind redirecting Alkilith to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters? Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's done. :-) - Philippe 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to ask and I should have been clearer, but could you restore the edit history for Alkilith too?  :) BOZ (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! Of course that's what you wanted, sorry. Yes, I'll do it. - Philippe 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem - thanks again! :) I'm just going through a big list bit by bit so that nobody goes "oh whoah, this guy just requested 50,000,000 article histories to be restored, what's up with that!"  ;) BOZ (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of those (few) cases where an admin-bot might come in handy. Probably wouldn't get approved though because of the danger of reinstating some edits that had been deleted on purpose (defamatory, etc). How many articles are on the list? - Philippe 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the full list with me... maybe another 25-30 D&D monster articles or so? Possible ones after that which I haven't considered for other lists or whatnot. Various admins did the deletions though, so I ask them directly. No one has refused yet - 28 successes so far.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Slow Down decision

I have found a good way to slow down. I have decided to try my best in creating as many good quality articles listed here. I just created one a few minutes ago. Also, I intend to not revert vandalism as much anymore unless it is obviuos vandalism such as total page blanking. I will continue creating articles until I feel that I am ready to continue. Any comments?--Ryan (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My name is Ryan by the way.--Ryan (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind giving your opinion on the articles I created here?--Ryan (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, whenever you have time. I know your a busy-body. Also, do you mind if I add you to my Friendbook? I've trusted you enough.--Ryan (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was just added to the WP:MFD. User:Metros is always looking at my contribs. Comments?--Ryan (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(copied from this page) I notice Metros is reverting some of your edits, with good reason. When users have to go back and check your edits to see if you're making mistakes, you should take that as a sign of needing to listen more carefully to the advice that countless people have given you. Plenty of people have offered you tips. This is a perfect example of why you should stop offering to "adopt" new users until your editing skills have improved. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So am I, if I find the time. As pointed out repeatedly above, you should take more care for your edits. So congrats to your decision to slow down, I'm sure that you will do great work.

Also, I strongly suggest that you stop chasing WP:HIGHSCOREs, which includes GAs and similar stuff. We are here to write a good encyclopedia, and the number of changes is simply unrelated to either amount of information covered or the quality of this information. You are not a better driver if you open the glove box more often than any person on the street. --Yooden ☮

There are so many reasons to slow down. Coming in to Wikipedia with the (apparently) primary goal of becoming an admin is the wrong attitude to take. Making an edit count as a goal is the wrong attitude to take. Considering oneself an "admin without blocking privileges" is the wrong attitude to take. Put all that into a middle school student and you have someone who has demonstrated (to me at least) someone who lacks the maturity to become an admin any time soon. I seriously suggest you stop discussing your possible nomination for the time being. Give ittill the end of Summer at least. The evidence against a successful nomination right now is strong. Slow down. Relax. Enjoy being a face in the crowd for a while. You've made some good contacts. When they feel you're ready, they'll let you know. Now is not that time. DarkAudit (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above comments, Ryan, and hope you'll take them to heart. Number of edits is not important: quality of edits is. Focus on the mainspace, work on wikifying and such, and have a good time. - Philippe 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments.

Thank you for your comments, they have been taken as intended. The use of the phrase "Sockpuppet" was used because the user referenced was admiting to using a sockpuppet account. --Coz (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:To-do list

I trust that you can help me so, can a to-do list be added to a userpage? Also, I have slowed down today and I created a decent article, I think.--Ryan (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked because it said alot on the link that it should be on an articles talkpages. Also, do you mind looking over my articles now?--Ryan (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link. Thanks again.--Ryan (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Brier

There wasn't very much participation. Any objections to the debate being re-opened? --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

None, although I thought it was a pretty clear lack of notability. If you think there's still an opportunity for it to be proven, please feel free to reopen with my support. - Philippe 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The opposite. Think it's self-publicising tosh, but the AFD didn't go "delete". I'll ask TRM if he can reopen. --Dweller (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Executives of the ASUC

Hello. I see that you closed the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Executives of the ASUC. It seems that someone in good faith moved the page to List of Executives of the Associated Students of the University of California during the AFD time period. So, when the AFD was closed, it only deleted the redirect. Is is possible for you to delete List of Executives of the Associated Students of the University of California, since that was the target of the AFD? Thanks!--SevernSevern (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Discospinster already got it. :-) - Philippe 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Links

I'm on a semi-wikibreak. I mainly reading wikipedia policies written here for the next week or two. It may help me become a better editor. Of course I will take a break and do other stuff but it won't be very long. Do you have any suggestions to add here?--RyRy5 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wowzers, that's pretty inclusive!! - Philippe 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well most of my userspace edits are to help out wikipedia by adding links, templates, ect. to it. I'm trying to edit in my userspace a lot less now. I have 1250+ mainspace edits and about 1200-1250+ userspace edits. I think I will take a break from reading policies for a little while today and I should wikify articles in the meantime. Any comments?--RyRy5 (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mak Man Kee Noodle Shop

You recently deleted the above article following someone's objection to the promotional tone of the article. The establishment is generally well-known far and wide, and is mentioned as 'lore' (note not listed) in guidebooks. It is considerably better known and regarded in Chinese circles. I would ask you to kindly restore it to my userspace, so that I can make the necessary improvements. Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's at User:Ohconfucius/Mak Man Kee Noodle Shop. - Philippe 04:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the page protection, I will notify when we have fixed this. If this happens again, I will contact you if you don't mind. --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

no problem at all. :-) - Philippe 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption Info

Hello. I have come up with a better plan. I have currently 1 adoptee, but I am the co-adopter. The main adopter is an admin. What do you think? It is a lot better than having 2 adoptees and both in which are mine.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine. I'll be honest, though, that I'm getting very frustrated by the amount of time we're still spending talking about adoptees. - Philippe 18:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should stop. I'm sorry for all the trouble.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on adopting, I think the method you've described above (1 adoptee, with you as "co-adopter") is the best solution. My preference remains that you not adopt, but as I've said before, I can't enforce that on you. - Philippe 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As little time as you've been here, and as much corrective action that has had to have been done, adoption should never have even been considered in the first place. You may mean well, but you're moving far too fast and leaving others to clean up mistakes in your wake. DarkAudit (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWB

I have been approved to have WP:AWB, but can you explain or give me a link on how to install it?--RyRy5 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are pretty good instructions at Wikipedia:AWB, as I recall - I haven't installed it since I got this computer, so it's been a while. There's also a question/answer board there, I think. Good luck! AWB is a powerful tool, but I've seen it get folks in a lot of trouble because they weren't careful with it.... be really sure to double-check every edit. - Philippe 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. And yes I will double check. I should practice at the sandbox.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see/understand on how to use WP:AWB, may you mentor me on this?--RyRy5 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I'd suggest is reading the instructions at WP:AWB - as I recall, that's all I had to do to figure it out. I'm about to leave the house for several hours so I won't be around for a while to help you, but the AWB instructions really are pretty good. The important thing is to load a category. :-) - Philippe 20:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song page lock

I do not think that it is fair for everyone else i the lock issue since only Wikipedia admins can edit and otehr users can not edit because BratzQ8 was adding unsourced singles and was being warned about it. I do not think it is very fair so can you atleast consider adding a semi protected lock for registered user who are confirmed to edit. IntoCreativeJan 12:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User Toolbox

I liked your Toolbox so I stole it from you that stole it from User:Fuhghettaboutit  :-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Green t-shirt

You're quick.  ;) Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd been watching that one. Fairly sure that he's a sock of someone, but not sure who yet. - Philippe 15:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into that too. New users do not typically jump into RfA's with their first edits unless they are socks with an agenda. Trusilver 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this one fails the WP:DUCK test miserably. But until I can tie it to someone for a CHU, I'm inclined to just let the extant blocks ride out. If he's dumb enough to try to evade, we'll get him there. - Philippe 16:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What a happy little gem in the middle of such a wet craptastic day! Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm --><-- that close to an indef block for tendentious editing, but figured I'll let him dig his hole a little deeper. He's thriving off the attention he's getting though. - Philippe 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Darius Guppy

I note your close of this. I am puzzled by your statement that the information which was removed was not sourced since, as I recall, it was sourced to national newspapers such as the Daily Mail. Please respond to this point before I take this to DRV since it may be a simple misunderstanding. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And to give an idea of the additional sources about this person, here's a sample from the hundreds of hits I just skimmed. This person has been appearing in the newspapers for over 10 years now. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

251. True love reaps its reward;Books;Book News; The Times (London); Apr 27, 1996; p. 1

... 44 Eagle Street, London WC1R 4FS. DARIUS GUPPY, the recently released...

252. Bone dry;Diary; The Times (London); Apr 23, 1996; P.H.S; p. 1

... and Rothschild, as well as Darius Guppy....

253. Ten guys to make her smile; Daily Mirror (London); Apr 17, 1996; p. 2

3.Darius Guppy: A finance whizzkid to...

254. GOTCHA GUPPY ; Sunday Mirror exposes Royal pal Darius's crooked pirate video scam; The Daily Mirror (London); Apr 7, 1996; p. 1

HIGH-SOCIETY conman Darius Guppy is plotting a new racket...

255. HOW ROYALS, ARISTOS AND TARTS FELL UNDER THE SPELL OF ... ; The yuppie from hell; The Daily Mirror (London); Apr 7, 1996; Len Read; p. 4

SOCIALITE fraudster Darius Guppy had all life's...

256. So you can make a few million..I'll be an expert ; ..NOT SO RISKY AS COUNTERFEITING CASH..THE IRISH WOULD ADMIRE ME FOR SCREWING LLOYD'S..; The Daily Mirror (London); Apr 7, 1996; Tracy Schaverien And Gerry Brown; p. 2

UPPERCRUST swindler Darius Guppy is plotting a crooked...

257. That ***! Howard; The Daily Mirror (London); Apr 7, 1996; p. 3

DARIUS Guppy branded beleaguered Home...

258. China shop;Diary; The Times (London); Mar 21, 1996; P.H.S; p. 1

... Lord Longford, prison visitor, to Darius Guppy, former prison resident...

259. Diary; The Guardian (Manchester); Mar 19, 1996; Joanna Coles; p. 017

... for at last allowing my friend Darius Guppy - motto Walk With the...

260. That's no gent!; News of the World (London); Mar 17, 1996; p. 9

HOW could Darius Guppy be described as a...

261. Di's brother helped me beat up 5 men; News of the World (London); Mar 10, 1996; Rebekah Wade, Deputy Editor; p. 44

DARIUS GUPPY and his pal Lord Charlie...

262. We hid Pounds 1.8m gems in Jaffa Cakes; News of the World (London); Mar 10, 1996; Rebekah Wade, Deputy Editor; p. 37

OLD Etonian diamond thief Darius Guppy has revealed how he hid...

263. WE'LL BE FRIENDS FOREVER, BUT . . Our marriage is over ; Di's brother and sad Vicky give up battle; Daily Mirror (London); Mar 6, 1996; James Whitaker, Royal Correspondent; p. 14

At the reception his best man Darius Guppy backed out of making a...

264. Damages for Earl Spencer; The Guardian (Manchester); Mar 6, 1996; p. 007

... used to launder the proceeds of Darius Guppy's gems insurance fraud....

265. Spencer urges sister to try life abroad; The Times (London); Mar 6, 1996; Tim Jones; p. 1

... fraud which led to his friend - Darius Guppy - being imprisoned....

266. Media Guardian: Magazine Kiosk: Intimacy rules, OK! The celeb mag that's on telephone terms with the Collins sisters is going weekly. Joanna Coles on a new challenger to Hello!; The Guardian (Manchester); Mar 4, 1996; Joanna Coles; p. T.015

... 75,000 for an interview with Darius Guppy. Fergie and Andrew once...

267. Our Princess of Love's crucial role in Ulster; The Guardian (Manchester); Mar 1, 1996; Bel Littlejohn; p. 015

... of Blandford (transport) and Mr Darius Guppy (personal finance)....

268. Jail watchdog threatens to quit; The Independent (London); Feb 25, 1996; Nick Cohen; p. TITLE

... treatment of the society fraudster Darius Guppy and other high-profile...

269. Letter: On Guppy and other ex-cons; The Guardian (Manchester); Feb 22, 1996; Piers Morgan.; p. 018

DARIUS Guppy's account of his...

270. Letter: Darius Guppy's story (at no cost); The Guardian (Manchester); Feb 21, 1996; Darius Guppy; p. 016

Letter: Darius Guppy's story (at no cost)...

271. Media: Extracts of truth The Mail didn't pay anything for Nick Leeson's memoirs. How did they do that? By being 'hypocritical', according to Mirror editor Piers Morgan. Michael Leapman reports; The Guardian (Manchester); Feb 19, 1996; Michael Leapman; p. T.013

... well-connected insurance swindler Darius Guppy, decided to back out of...

272. Diary; The Times (London); Feb 14, 1996; P.H.S; p. 1

... the convicted insurance fraudster Darius Guppy has burst into song to...

273. The voice squad Celebrities with a gift of the gab can make an after-dinner mint; The Observer (London); Feb 11, 1996; Katharine Whitehorn; p. 006

If Darius Guppy is still short of a bob...

274. Golden boy gets off too lightly;Opinion; The Times (London); Feb 11, 1996; Lesley White; p. 1

... release from prison last week of Darius Guppy, doubtless amazed that...

275. Fraudster Guppy to sue Mirror over story 'deal'; The Guardian (Manchester); Feb 10, 1996; Clare Dyer; p. 006

DARIUS Guppy, the society fraudster...

The information regarding charges of fraud, etc, were not sourced. Until/unless properly sourced, they were violations of our WP:BLP policy. If you believe you can appropriately source this article, I'm happy to place it in your personal userspace to give you the opportunity to do so. Once that's done, we can review whether to move it back to the encyclopedia. Is that acceptable to you? - Philippe 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That should be ok. Perhaps you could also annotate the AFD to say that you are userfying the article so that its sourcing may be improved offline. Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is now at User:Colonel Warden/Darius Guppy. I'll note to AFD. - Philippe 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

please reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel)

Could you please reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel)? I had just added material that I think would have proven notability, a review from the Yorkshire Evening Post, and I was about to add a second newspaper review from the Coventry Telegraph at http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/whats-on-coventry-warwickshire/book-reviews-and-news/2008/04/21/centurion-by-simon-scarrow-headline-12-99-92746-20794309/ I think that the people who !voted delete might have changed their !votes once they saw what I had added. --Eastmain (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm uninclined to reopen it (it ran the full length and to my mind notability has still not been established), but what I'll do is userfy it to your userspace to give you the opportunity to source it and prove notability. Once you think you've done that, we'll see about moving it into the main encyclopedia. Would that work for you? - Philippe 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Centurion (Scarrow novel)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Centurion (Scarrow novel). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my offer to userfy to allow the work to continue, but stand by the close. - Philippe 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Powers and abilities of the Hulk

Sure, but keep the article in your watchlist, we can't be sure if the anon's address is dynamic and he may try to evade the block and reinstate his version without discussion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'll do it. Thanks. :-) - Philippe 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sesshomaru

You have posted a 3rr block notice on his page but he seems not to have been warned nor even aware of the process ... indeed I cannot find the process anywhere. Was this a joke? I have had my problems with this user but I do not like the thought that he has been found guilty in absentia. Abtract (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk. - Philippe 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind me chiming in as someone who also has that page watchlisted, that article has been the target of quite a few sockpuppet attacks from Jjonz, as seen here [21]. Sess was definitely in violation of WP:3RR, no doubt. Looking at the situation for the first time and noticing that the anon IP editor has no other edits except this article (and also ignored Sess's warnings and conversation on his talk page), it looks to me like Sesshomaru was pretty certain he was dealing with another IP sockpuppet of the oft-banned user. I would have assumed the same, although I would have taken it to an admin for protection.

The IP was also making changes based on a discussion that took place on a forum, which seems to be the same edit pushed by recent editor User talk:TheJaff, another user with no edits except to this article who refused to discuss his changes anywhere except in edit summaries. It seems to happen a lot around there.

Anyway, I just wanted to give you a little background on the page since I've always been a fan of your work as an admin. It wouldn't surprise me to see another random editor show back up now that Sess is blocked and try to make the same old edits. If that turns out to be the case, I'll give you the heads-up before another edit war breaks out. That article is a weird little island. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded on Redrocket's talk. :-) - Philippe 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, will do. I don't even remember what the circumstance was that led me to watch your page, but I do remember I appreciated the way you handled whatever it was. If I need admin help on that page (or any other), I'll certainly let you know. Thanks again! Redrocket (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Your work as an admin is invaluable to the Wikipedia community. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-Admin Closures

I noticed at the WP:AFD that people make Non-Admin Closures. May I do that and can you teach me. Or you can just give me a link to the section.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe

thanks for jumping in, good luck in sorting it out :) Pundit|utter 03:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for your intervention.

I've been hoping for an intervention for months, literally.

Could you request mediation from the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for the Eastern Europe and Western Europe articles as well. They too are suffering from nationalist born POV edits.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll absolutely see if I can get the MedCabal to pay attention to those disputes. I'm unfortunately not currently in a situation where I can attempt to personally mediate (because of the Board of Trustees elections), but I'll see if there's someone else there that can. - Philippe 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please restore article

Can you please restore St. Luke's Miranda with its history as I asked in the AFD- I want to merge the page to the suburb so I can keep the old history of the page for when I have time to add it properly. JRG (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have userfied the article to User:JRG/St. Luke's Miranda. Once you think you have notability documented, let me know and I'll move it back to the mainspace. - Philippe 04:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't you understand - I don't want it restored to the mainspace - I only want the history kept so I can access it to use for information for the suburb article. I agree that a separate article is out of the question, but it can be included in a suburb article. JRG (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then use the history from the article that I userfied, and then let me know and I'll delete it out of your userspace. :-) - Philippe 16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Olahus has infringed the WP:3RR other times before

1. -User_talk:Olahus#3_revert_rule Description: On 25 January 2008 he was warned for violating the WP:3RR on the Romanian article.
2. -User_talk:Olahus#More_on_the_Sz.C3.A9kely Description: On 18 February 2008, he was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring.
3. -User_talk:Olahus#Central_Europe_.232 Description: On 14 March 2008 he was warned for edit warring on the Central Europe article.
4. -User_talk:Olahus#Block_notice Description: On 4 April 2008 he was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring.

Olahus is a repeat ofender of the WP:3RR, shouldn't he be punished for what he did today again?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It was very clear to me that there was serious baiting going on with that article. I'm not going to be a pawn at the end of the tunnel in that case - I chose to warn. I stand by that decision. There were a couple of other blocks that I could have handed out as well, and I chose not to then either... - Philippe 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am really glad you are willing to hand out blocks.

The thing is I am from Brazil and I don't care about the outcome of that article and since the edit warring (3 on that page already) is wearing me out, I really feel like simply unwatching that page. I am really tired.

Another fact since March 10 2008 Olahus has made over 80 edits to the Central Europe article. I made less than 25 edits.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

re block of Sesshomaru (talk · contribs)

Hi, the above is an editors userpage I have watched - as the editor gets a lot of vandalism and other grief from editors relating to manga and comic book hero articles. I reviewed the editors contrib history, and concluded that the edit war referred to was the Hulk related article (?). It is my opinion that Sesshomaru was reverting vandalism by an ip - the earlier revisions noted the need for a separate citation for the information being added - which should not count toward 3RR. I further note the lack of any warnings (not even a 4im) before the block. Sesshomaru's account is just over a year old, and I have found the editor to be a keen contributor who keeps a lot of articles clear of vandalism. If you look at the contrib history for 21st April you will have an idea how wide this editor spreads himself.

I should be grateful that if Sesshomaru requests unblock, and the reviewing editor requests an opinion from yourself that you would be minded to agree. Sesshomaru does a great deal of good for the project and, while he could use talk pages and other avenues more quickly/frequently, does not - in my opinion - deserve the severity of a 48 hour block.

Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My original inclination was toward a 24 hour block, but Sesshomaru has been previously blocked for 3RR, and our general agreement is that blocks should get generally longer. Sesshomaru showed staggeringly bad judgment in this case - he should have requested page protection (which I would have been inclined to give), but to go on and on in a never-ending cycle was a terrible decision. I'm also not sure how one could reasonably conclude that he was reverting vandalism, but I'm open to hearing more about the theory. To my mind it looks like a clean-cut content dispute regarding one statement made by the narrator of the show.

However, at this point, if he were to request a review, I'd be inclined to look favorably on it, but he would need to convince me it was vandalism and not a content dispute. I'll go leave a message to that extend on his talk page. - Philippe 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For my own records, I'm making this note that I have been in discussion with the user and have lifted his block early. I'm not saying it was a bad block - I still think it was valid - but I honestly think the user believed he was acting in the best interest of the project and it was a considered action, so I'm reducing the block to time served. - Philippe 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at my talkpage. I am aware of Sesshomaru's passion not always being allied with consideration of process, and I wasn't saying the block was wrong (although a level4im may have also stopped the revert war), but was asking for a favourable review should he apply for unblock. It seems that you have resolved the matter between yourselves, and hopefully Sesshomaru will use the option of requesting outside assistance in future similar instances, which is all I could have hoped for. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:AMLFILMS

He doesn't want to let the Aaron Michael Lacey thing go. He kept adding to the AfD long after it had been closed. I reverted and told him not to do it again. I also copied the reply I posted here earlier on his talk page, with an addition. Just keep an eye out. The article may try to spring up again. DarkAudit (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yeah, I've been sort of hoping it would fizzle, but I'm prepared to intervene at this point. - Philippe 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

I have taken the second step to maturity here and you know what? I'm an adoptee now. I have been adopted by User:Steve Crossin. Feel free to comment.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do. I hope this goes well. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I just looked up darius guppy on here only to find you had chosen to delete the article! i cant believe it. if i looked him up i'm sure others would look him up also and he's definately notable being a notable member of one of the world's wealthiest families. Very bad call to delete it IMO. btw i didnt get to vote in the AFD but if i did i would have voted for very strong keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.159.40 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I'm sure sorry that you weren't able to find what you needed on Wikipedia. That article is in the process of being improved by one of our contributors, so I think that it'll be back up before too long. I'm really a little surprised that you came here to 1) look him up and 2) found out who did the deletion and 3) knew AFD process and 4) complained to the deleting admin. That shows a high level of familiarity with our internal processes. Have you considered registering an account and staying with us a while? - Philippe 11:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Familiar indeed. APK ^{yada yada} 12:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hello. Is blanking 1 section of an article vandalism? My goal today is to mainly revert vandalism.--RyRy5 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the main thing to know about vandalism, and it's an oft-misunderstood concept: vandalism requires ill will. No well intentioned edit is vandalism. So, if it appears that the blanking was done maliciously (as when someone blanks several sections of several articles), then the answer is yes. If it's done only once, to one article, I'd hold off and just ask the user what they're doing. - Philippe 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I also asked others about this. I'm a little bothered about this question so I asked others.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If you get different responses from folks, I'd be curious to hear about them. This particular area of policy is my pet peeve... I think that WP:VANDAL is pretty clear about it, and folks tend to assume the worst about contributions sometimes. - Philippe 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like your comments on Vandal Proof. I requested it a while ago but there isn't a responce yet.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Proof is a great program. It's a little buggy at times, and it caused a lot of errors on my computer so I mostly stopped using it and switched to WP:TWINKLE, but it's still a spectacular tool. - Philippe 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How many people approves it to a user? In my opinion, I have seen only 2 users (1 was just blocked for 24 hours).--RyRy5 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question? - Philippe 02:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, people must be approved to use VandalProof. How many people can approve it?--RyRy5 (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not really sure, honestly. used to be three or four of 'em but that info's about a year out of date. Which got blocked? - Philippe 02:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand. I think because of personal attacks. I think he also got unblocked. I don't know, I didn't read thoroughly.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)\

<sigh, with facepalm> Betacommand. Never seen someone work so hard, or piss people off so much. - Philippe 03:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it happens. Also, I've reverted at least 50 times today with none reverted! BTW, I've never gave you a notice in a while since about my 800th mainspace edit. Well, I'm proud to say I've got 1600+ mainspace.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! Im glad to hear it. I'm off for a bit... reality calls... :-) - Philippe 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)