User talk:Philippe/Archive3

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Dewayne Williams

Can you undo this and give it a few more days? — Omegatron (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If you think there's a possibility you can prove notability, I'm all for it. I have no objection to you restoring it yourself, or I'm happy to restore it myself and so note the AfD. Let me know which way you want to go with it. - Philippe 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosniaks

Please google haplogroup I1b, and see if it reflects Bosniaks texts related to genetics, such as highlights that Bosniaks are firstly of Slavic genetic heritage. Because the consesus is clearly dominated by one or more Serb editors with multiple nicknames. And you keep banning all Bosniak interests and everybody who this Serbian based vandal group dismiss. My advice, just read for a while about haplogroup I1b and you will see that Everybody says it is isolated in Bosniak based populous and drops amazingly when outside of their regions. Find some maps from gov based sources that do not generalise to nations, instead look at maps that offer higher resolutions and zooms. 77.78.198.147 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you mistake me for someone with a stake in the content of that article. I have no - zero - none - interest in getting involved in that content dispute. My sole motivation in protection the page was to prevent the back and forth blind reversions that were going on and force the parties to the article's talk page to discuss it. So, rather than bringing this information to me here, take it to the article's talk page. I will not take a stand on content for that page. - Philippe 20:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is rather useless to take it to talk pages, as I said the consensus is bullied away from reflecting sources, instead they are "exterminate Bosniaks and their heritage" POW because "we know Admins will be too blind to notice" 77.78.198.147 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're certainly not going to allow it on the article if it's not in consensus. May I suggest dispute resolution? - Philippe 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yah ok, thanks, done. 77.78.198.147 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responsible Editing Pledge

Would you give your consideration to signing this pledge from doc Glasgow. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for calling it to my attention. Since this is my only account and it's easily linkable to my real name, I have no problem signing the pledge, though I would not support it as a mandatory rule for anyone other than myself. Interesting concept, and I appreciate that you brought it to me. It's something to think about, clearly. - Philippe 03:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm working on an article about the Old Stone House in one of my sandboxes. I stopped by the house a few days ago and picked up a brochure for research. Some of the info is not accessible online (or else I'm just not finding it) and I'm wondering how I reference a brochure. It was made by the National Park Service, so it's definitely a RS. Also, I laughed when I read your comment and I responded. Thanks. APK ^{yada yada} 04:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

<sniff> You said you'd never tell! <grin> I think for citation purposes, I'd treat a brochure as a book (although, obviously) without the ISBN number. Details are at Wikipedia:CITE#FULL. To be sure, though, you might ask over at the WP:REFDESK, because I've never done that before. - Philippe 13:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I use the HD alot, but the one time I used the RD I didn't get an answer. I'll try there again. APK ^{yada yada} 14:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I could get beaten, tarred, feathered, and flayed for admitting this, but ... sourcing isn't my strong suit. I can edit the hell out of an article, and tell you where it needs to be sourced, but I don't actually do much original writing, so sourcing is a definite weak spot in my knowledge. I should really sit down with the WP pages on it and spend some time just reading. - Philippe 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked at the HD and they gave me some good advice. I guess being beaten and tarred is better than being locked in stocks. APK ^{yada yada} 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that some day I will do something sufficiently erm... misguided... enough to end up in the Stocks. In the meantime, I prefer stock. Glad the help desk could - well, - help. - Philippe 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

A user gave me a vandal warning on my talkpage but he noticed that I wasn't the vandal. He claims he targeted VP on the wrong user (me) and gave me the warning instead. He noticed that so he undid the warning he gave me. I was wondering if undoing a warning template will not be vandalism in my permanent records if there was one.--RyRy5 (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, most people occasionally fire at the wrong person. It happens, it's no big deal. It happened to me. As long as they document (by leaving a note on your talk page) that it was an accident, no harm is done. - Philippe 15:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it! I'm just making sure.--RyRy5 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's sometimes a symptom of someone just going too quickly. That's usually when I made that kind of mistake. I've been on both ends of it, though. It happens. Obviously, if it happens too often, people start to pay attention, but it's sort of a principle of the wiki that editors are people and people make mistakes. - Philippe 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually started to pay attention to my reverts too. But sometimes I'm a little to quick, but I still make sure I'm reverting actual vandalism. Oh yes, 1700+ mainsapace. Reverting does help a lot. I'm just taking Persion Poet Gal's advice to revert vandalism for a while and take less time editing articles.--RyRy5 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. The core of the Wiki is article writing, but we have a ton of folks who specialize in other things. I'm one of them. I specialize in organizational details, but I also take diversions into dealing with vandals and with AFDs. I admire people who write tons of articles and wish I could be like them, but it's just not me. I'm happy to spell-check and reword and clarify articles, but I'm not someone who can sit down and bang out the text from a blank screen. The moral of the story is this: you don't have to do any one thing to be a star contributor. I cut my teeth on reverting vandalism and then found my niche from there. Article writing will never be my strongest point, and I have taken some heat for that, but it's just not what I'm good at. - Philippe 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not that good of a writer myself. Although I have created 13 articles, most of them are short and about 5 of them are rated start class (which is good I think). But I do like writing and improving certain articles like Justin Masterson for example. I really like how his career is going. In fact, he made his Major Leagur debut yesterday (Although he was sent back to Double-A Portland right after). Anyway, I'm mainly going to improve Justin Masterson, vote on AfD's, and revert vandalism this week. Well, I'll be busy becuase I have to remodel an admin's userpage (which he is really desperate of doing. He said he wanted the best userpage ever. He was even willing to give out a CD or DVD if he like s it).--RyRy5 (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We used to have a user (User:Phaedriel) who did a ton of userpage stuff for folks. She did my first one, and my current one is stolen from one she did for someone else. In addition to being great at that, she was an all-around kind person. I miss her. All that to say, as much as I'd like to push you away from doing user-space work, the occasional userpage can be a real benefit to the community, and if an admin has asked you to do it for him, that's a good sign. :-) - Philippe 15:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 17	21 April 2008	About the Signpost

BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD	Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested
Global login, blocking features developed	WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes	WikiProject Report: The Simpsons
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) 16:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New Komodo Lover sockpuppet

Goes by the name "Mr Loner". I've added him to the suspect page, but he needs immediate banning. He keeps blanking his talk page to prevent anyone from getting suspicious. CBFan (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Ed got him blocked. :-) I'll keep an eye on his talk page, but I may just protect it and move on with life. Thanks! - Philippe 20:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Nothing444's Block

Are users supporting or opposing his indef block?--RyRy5 (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All the users who have commented are in favor of the indef block. MBisanz ^talk 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find this answer for yourself at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Nothing444 as well as User talk:Nothing444#A joke?. Metros (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I thought so. Thanks. I will also comment there.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

State your own opinions, not just what you believe others are saying or what you think others want you to say. Based on your question here and your reply on the noticeboard, it appears that you're just trying to support what administrators say so you're not looked down upon. If you truly believe he should be blocked, state your reasons why; don't say you support because others believe he should be blocked. Metros (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified why I endorsed.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was away from the computer when this happened, but I endorse the action. Nothing has shown no interest in improvement, and has exhausted my (and the community's) patience. - Philippe 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was also exhausted but I kept my WP:COOL.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very kind words. Someone else also replied to your message. BTW, I gave up admin coaching yesterday if you didn't know. I am not ready for admin coaching yet. I think I should stick with adoption for now. That reminds me, I should remove my profile at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that whole conversation just goes to show that this is a community that's willing to fall all over itself to give people ways to fit in if they show any interest. You did, and folks were willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and now you've got a positive show of support. That should make you feel really good. You know that Wikipedians tend to be quick to jump when you're wrong, but this community's usually got your back if you're trying. :-) - Philippe 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Today's a good day for me. When I last had rollback, I was getting punished for misusing it. Now, I'm getting thanked for using it properly.--RyRy5 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is why I really don't want to talk to him/her. The user is not setting a good example to me and I sometimes don't like his attitude. Remember what you did to me and Queerbubbles, the disengagment, can you possibly do that again with me and that user?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The only way to really make someone disengage is to ask them politely, then ignore them. If they persist, we have dispute resolution, but that's a really bad idea at this point. If I were you, I'd just ignore him. I think he's had some folks frown at him, and maybe that's enough. - Philippe 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That was before I got your message. I will notify that.--RyRy5 (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have notified to close it. Philippe, I am still very sorry. I just thought EditoroftheWiki was right since he is an experienced user. But I have thought things through and I have figured out that Metros is a good, responcible admin. Well, do you forgive me?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You absolutely must not create any drama here. As much support as was demonstrated today, it will not be enough to protect you if you are the cause of drama. You have taken it from a situation where Metros was wrong to one where you were wrong. Terribly poor judgment. I imagine Steve will have something to say, but if you closed the topic, there's really nothing else to do. I would think it appropriate for you to apologize to Metros for even being a part of it. - Philippe 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

RE Ryan

Thanks for letting me know. What will happen is being discussed on IRC as we speak. Possibly doing his adoption on an external wiki, and refraining from editing here until his adoption is complete. It's an idea under active discussion. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 01:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiBreak

I will be on a wikibreak so that I may think things through. I will not be online as much as normal. But this should be a short wikibreak. What do you think?--RyRy5 (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD closure

I notice that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination) with the deletion of the article. Your closing statement does not appear to treat the issues of whether the deletion of this article constitutes an effective violation of our biographies of living persons policy, insofar as it removes our well-sourced favorable information concerning Vicki Iseman, and ensures that we describe her only in the context of a scandal, thereby creating the very sort of negatively biased coverage that the biographies of living persons policy is designed to prevent, an issue raised by both myself and other editors at the AFD discussion, and to which editors supporting deletion offered no substantive response. I further note that the administrator who closed the deletion review concerning the first AFD discussion concurred with my WP:BLP rationale for the retention of the article:

the spirit of WP:BLP (i.e. do no harm) is better served with retention of the article than a "...Controversy" fork alone.[1]

Indeed, there might well have been a numerical majority favoring retention of the article, had this issue been raised immediately after the nomination. In light of these considerations, I would ask that you reevaluate your closure of this AFD discussion. John254 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I'll certainly rethink the closure, but can't do it tonight; hopefully at some point tomorrow I can take a look at it again. My gut instinct is to stand by my closure, but I'll happily revisit that with your comments in mind. - Philippe 04:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi John - I've spent some time with the nom and the relevant policies and considered your very good argument above. (I also slept on it overnight to be sure of my feelings). As it stands now, I still believe that to delete the article was the right decision. I think that other activities around Ms Iseman would not in fact have been notable if it were not for her relationship (and by this, I mean association, not alleged sexual liason) with Senator McCain. Given that, I think this falls in as the fairly standard single-event notability issue. That is, she is notable only for this event: she has done other things, and I'm sure she's a good person, but nothing else about her is encyclopedic at this time.

I agree with the "Do No Harm" mantra, and think since the media attention around her has not coalesced as some thought it might (ie, she's no Gennifer Flowers), it's best to let her slip off into that dark night.

Your points were well made and logical, I just chose to believe this is the best solution. However, I invite you to deletion review if you think you can make your case there. Should you choose to take it there, I certainly bear no ill wil and will follow the discussion with interest. - Philippe 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

If there is edit warring, why didn't you fully protect the page? seresin ( ¡? ) 03:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring does not always force full protection. In this case, as it appeared that it was primarily anons who were disregarding attempts to form consensus, semi-protection serves to force them to the talk page. - Philippe 04:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Philippe, there are exactly three anons involved -- me, Edward and Bert -- and all three of us are on the talk pages trying to build a consensus. Everything Edward said has been deleted over and over again, even though he actually knows what he's talking about and is making powerful arguments that nobody can even touch. In the meantime, there's a solid block of True Fans who love Rand so much that they'll gladly bully, lie and cheat to make her look good, and you're just helping them by selectively blocking out the majority of non-Randians involved on that article. Instead of encouraging us to talk things out, the gross unfairness made me walk away from the whole thing. In short, you've been tricked by zealots and your actions have had the opposite of their intended effect. Maybe you'll think twice about listening to them next time. 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Nobody's making you walk away... the talk page is still wide open. :-) I prevented reverts without consensus and changes without discussion, yes - but nobody's making you walk away. Don't over-state the situation, please. - Philippe 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I am seeing is that it not just IPs who are edit-warring. Registered editors are also involved. Therefore, semi-protection allows the registered editors to continue as they please, while the IPs cannot. If you look at the protection policy, content disputes are only provided for with full protection. It doesn't say you can semi if it is only IPs. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Seresin is right, of course. By claiming that the Randists have the consensus and locking out everyone else, you're taking sides in a content dispute. You didn't stop an edit war, you declared a victor. Fact is, it's not your job or right to determine what the consensus is, and majority vote is not consensus, and even consensus doesn't beat out the requirement for accuracy, especially for biographies. This is an article on a controversial topic, so it brings in a lot of people who have strong views and resist consensus.

Some very powerful arguments have been made against blandly calling Rand a philosopher, since even the citation used to justify this goes out of its way to explain that she is NOT, as one might except, a trained academic philosopher, but rather a novelist who hated academia and was hated in turn. Some people, claiming consensus, would like to take the word "philosopher" out of context by removing any modifiers, and others oppose this.

That's fine, but now you've taken sides. As an editor, you can take any side you like, as an admin, you're supposed to be neutral. Otherwise, you're showing that the fix is in, which I suspect is going to keep the anons from coming to the table. After all, when the situation seems blatantly unfair, walking away is the best choice, and there is clearly at least the appearance of unfairness here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may suggest something, there's a simple way to stay involved in this process. I understand your concerns, so why not just register an account? Redrocket (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the classic admin "no-win" situations. There are requests to semi-protect a page against a content dispute, and we take action to protect the wiki based on the information available to us. Some others disagree. That's okay. I don't mind. But this is not a situation where everyone will be happy, and I will not be able to resolve it. May I suggest that you request someone unprotect is at WP:RFPP? I'm not going to do it, so that's the logical next step. - Philippe 02:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But you haven't yet told me where the protection policy allows you to semi-protect a page for an edit war, when it only lists it under full protection. Especially since both registered and non registered editors are involved. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there's a win in this, but you're avoiding it. If you've been requested to favor one side in a content dispute by abusing semi-protection, just say no. It won't please everyone -- nothing will -- but at least it'd be fair, and that counts for something. I think we know at this point that you made a mistake. The question remains: will you fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that I am not part of this conversation, but the simplest fix is just for you and the other IPs to register for an account. That way you will be able to contribute to the protected article. And should there be more waring and conflict, other steps will be taken. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 12:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that I 'made a mistake' in this. I don't believe I did. I minimally protected a page, in order that discussion should continue. NO ONE is prevented from editing (the {{editprotected}} template falls into place here), and no one is prevented from discussion (the talk page is still open). I slowed down the speed of reverts and forced some people to the talk page. I stand by that. As I've said before, you will not receive the satisfaction you're looking for on this talk page. I encourage you to try WP:RFPP, which is the appropriate venue for this discussion at this point, since I do not wish to reconsider my action. - Philippe 16:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In essence, you sided with the registered editors by only semi protecting it, and violated the protection policy. I believe that the article should have been fully protected, and intend to do so. Is this acceptable? seresin ( ¡? ) 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to you changing the protection. Thank you for the courtesy of letting me know. - Philippe 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got a better idea: why don't you just fi your own error by reverting the last change, then setting full protection for the article? 02:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Philippe did nothing wrong here, and you continually complaining about it isn't helping. Just register an account. Boom, problem solved. Redrocket (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon 69.121, we've reached a solution. Another admin is willing to make changes that I have agreed not to revert. The system works. Your last comment was not helpful. - Philippe 04:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song page

Ok, it is 26 April 2008 so can you please remove the only - admin lock since it is set to expire today. Thanks! - IntoCreativeJan 10:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's done. For future reference, protection lifts automatically, and anyone can remove the icon.  :-) - Philippe 14:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I thought only admins couls remove it. Thanks. But I have one question. There used to be a protection template on Derek Jeter and it said it would expire around late May. What happened to it? Do you know?--RyRy5 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That one actually expires on June 13th, it looks like. If you look over in the top right corner of the screen, there's a little icon of a lock. That's a small=yes term that you can put on the end of the protection template. So, the template would look like {{sprotect|small=yes}} (or one of the various ways to do pp templates) and it gives that minor indicator instead of the HUGE template that usually comes. - Philippe 15:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Anyway, I'm planning to create an article that I will nominate for DYK. Comments?--RyRy5 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think anytime we're creating valid articles it's a good thing. :-) - Philippe 16:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm really going to concentrate on this article so that it meets DYK standards. The article is about a charity. Well, when I create it, can you help me improve it?--RyRy5 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my very best, but read the great big notice I put at the top of my top page just a minute ago. I expect the next 24-48 hours to be quite busy for me. (BTW, be sure your charity article meets WP:ORG, particularly the section titled "Non-commercial organizations"). - Philippe 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. But remember, DYK standards say that an article needs to be less than 5 days old so you will have more time. And I will try to make the article meet WP:ORG.--RyRy5 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Turn 2 Foundation

I'm planning to make it a DYK so I would like your utmost help and opinions. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh Snap... Help?

If you check this out you will see that things are getting out of hand. Can it be SNOWed to keep yet? Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

NM... protonk took care of it. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 02:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi,

I have recently seen that you have deleted one of the articles created by me (Gulfstream Turbo Commander) with the following explanation: "Speedy deleted per (CSD G12), was a blatant copyright infringement. using TW". I have copied that page from a US government site (URL: http://www.aoc.noaa.gov/aircraft_turbo.htm), and by default all US government works are under public domain. There is no sign of copyright with this government website , thus I think we may copy text from there. Please kindly re-investigate the issue and revert deleteion if possible.

Thank you very much --Alperen (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Thanks, and it's true, I am taking a lot of complaints. It was all going well until I lost rollback. But I just learned something today while reading policies. Rollback is not supposed to be used for good faith edits. And I've learned more too, but it's just too much to list. Thanks again.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 00:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User page

A week ago you offered to semi-protect my userpage.... since all of the vandals where anonymous IPs, I think I'd like to take your offer and get the thing semi-protected if it wouldn't be too much trouble... Thanks in advance. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Steward/Developer

i already have this installed and have tested it on it. I wanted to access it further but I cant as I dont have sufficient privlillages for such actions. Which is why i raised the question with Jimbo Wales because I did it for my A Level computing project. Chris19910 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll find a distinct lack of support for using our live environment for such a test, though you could try writing to wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org and see if you get any positive response. - Philippe 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Myrmyxicus

Hello again.  :) You've been so helpful before, I was wondering if you'd be able to restore the edit history to Myrmyxicus and redirect it to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters for me? Thanks! BOZ (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. :-) - Philippe 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again!  :) BOZ (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

Cheers, it seems the ip adresses that were once my swarn enemy could now be my greatest asset. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination)

Hi, I wonder if you would be good enough to userfy this page to me, please, to enable me to take part in the DRV discussion? BlueValour (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded on user talk. - Philippe 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. It's been a while since our last encouter and I hope your doing well. I would just like to say you've missed a lot. But I bet you would be proud to hear what else I've got to say, so I'll say it. On May 1, 2008, I created the article baseball uniform. I was hoping to get it to DYK. I improved it and improved it, and then it was sure enough ready for nom. It was nominated and a few days later, it passed. On May 5, it was posted on the mainpage. In other words, I created my first DYK. It's not like I'm bragging or anything, I just thought you would be happy to hear this. You can see the hook here. Comments would be delighted. Cheers.-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, that's really fantastic! Congratulations!! - Philippe 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet, another of my DYK noms that appeared in the DYK section on the mainpage on May 8. 2008.!--Ryan (talk ♠ Review) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Darius Guppy

He is back at AFD. You may be interested since you closed the previous AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	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) 06:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Do you speak french at all? lol Your username is a french name :) --Creamy!^Talk 17:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My french is just bad enough to get me kicked out of your basic first year french language course.  :-) - Philippe 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, anyways, thanks for answering ;) --Creamy!^Talk 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK Again

I recieved my 3rd DYK and helped get Coldplay to GA status.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fantastic. I'm glad to see you doing some article writing! :-) - Philippe 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So when are you going to be active again? I read the new notice on your talk page but I don't think there was a specific date. Also, do you mind looking over my my contributions.-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 19:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably be more active after the election in July - but I'll have periods of activity when we have lulls in preparation. I'll try to look through your contribs later today - about to leave my house. :-) - Philippe 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you back? I just saw you block an IP.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 21:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, cleaning out AIV. :-) I'll glance at your contribs in a sec. - Philippe 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you, Philippe, for always being kind, encouraging, and helpful to me ever since I met you, and I'm glad I ever met you. You're a great admin and person for that matter. And for that, I award you "The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar"! -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan! I appreciate your kind words very much. It's going to my userpage right now. :-) - Philippe 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your very welcome. I appreciate all the things you have done to help me. And about the your comments, I use popups and undo when I am not entirly sure if an edit is vandalism so that I won't cause so much trouble and get rollback removed. I promised Keeper76 and myself that I would use rollback only on page blanking and nonsense adding. The easiest vandalism to spot is probably those two so that's what I will use rollback for.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good decision. Well done. - Philippe 22:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, I think I found an article to nominate for WP:DYK. I currently have about 4 articles for nomination right now. I have two one questions. When did you become an admin and have you ever recieved a DYK?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I've never done a DYK. One of my huge deficiencies is that I don't do a great deal of content work. That was a big challenge in my admin nom. I became an admin on July 20 of last year... my RFA is here. I don't pretend that emulating my path is the best way to become an admin - I definitely took the hard path, in that I really don't create content - I'm a plain old-fashioned vandal fighter who also happened to have some bureaucratic skills (in the classical sense) that demonstrated my worth to the community (on the election committee). Would have been a lot easier if I'd buckled down and written a few articles. :-) - Philippe 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's good to know, I think. I'll be doing some vandal fighting and article writing/improving now. Do you have any comments?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think those are absolutely the right things to focus on. :-) - Philippe 23:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian 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 or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Phillipe.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. While you may have trusted my judgment, it appears that too many do not :( Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The BLP exception to 3RR

A block you gave for 3RR is being used as an example in a discussion at WT:BLP. You may wish to contribute your insights. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I searched that page for my username and couldn't locate... Thanks, I found it. Pia L, I presume. Thanks for the notification. - Philippe 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I guess I should have had a "resolving admin" column on the table, but I was trying to minimise drama. Bovlb (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good decision, that. - Philippe 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured that the less I pointed a finger at specific people, the greater the chance that the discussion would stay on track. I think we may be past that point now.  :) Bovlb (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Major League Wiffle

Hi, Philippe! I don't really agree with your close of delete here due to sourcing issues raised, but I respect your close. Would you mind userfying it for me? I think I can add the sourcing to make it pass DRV or whatever would need to happen. Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, and at User:Travellingcari/Major League Wiffle (MLW).  :-) - Philippe 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that I created the article originally. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. :-) - Philippe 03:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Philippe! RyRy, I've found some sources (included with the AfD), but if you know of any others, please feel free to let me know and I'll add them if they meet RS guidelines. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Travellingcari/Major League Wiffle (MLW). Do you think this is enough to make it back and survive AfD/DRV? I think the league/championships are notable on the grounds of nationwide coverage, including the WSJ overriding the local clause of WP:ORG. I think the best move would be to remove the section on the NY cul-de-sac league (I was able to source one of the articles in the original article but that's entirely local coverage) and rename this to Wiffle Ball National Championship Series or United States Perforated Plastic Baseball Association, the governing body of the championships. Thoughts on that? It would still be a stub but I think it's a notable league. Looking forward to your input, thanks for userfying. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 23, 2004

Hey. Ironically, I was just about to close this as delete, and I was curious as to why you closed it the way you did, or if there's extra reasons. I have seen AfDs for dates in the past, and they have been deleted, so there is precedent on the matter, and it's not really a question of policy at all by waht you're saying, I think. I'm tempted to DRV it but maybe you can convince me not to. Wizardman 03:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is precedent, I'd be interested to see it. The AFD had so many different feelings about it that I thought it might be best to "punt" this one back to the community. I have no objection to a DRV, since it might clarify it a bit. - Philippe 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I went and DrV'd it then (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 14) Wizardman 03:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How does it look?

As you probably know, I am part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help. What do you think of my work I did to renovate User:Realist2's page? I actually thought it was my best work yet.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I also renovated User:Xp54321's page in one edit. How does that look also? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, what do you mean by "staying away from the electric teal color"? I don't really understand what you meant by that. And thanks for your comments. I love helping others and I think that the Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help is a good place to start with. I also go to the help desk on occasions. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll clarify. What I meant was that I'm not particularly fond of the color of User:Xp54321 - the background color is hard on the eyes (particularly OLD eyes like mine!) - Philippe 02:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'll see what I can do later. I didn't really think 32 year old eyes would have any affect on that. :P Thanks or notifying Steve also about the AFD. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

<Grin> Some days I feel way older than 32! The other reason I suggest avoiding that color is that it may not render exactly right on a lot of screens; some of them come out a little off. In any case, userpage color is clearly a personal preference, so you should do what that user likes. - Philippe 03:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Userfying

Hi. Thanks for userfying the Evolution of Music Management essay. I'd also like "Sex, Drugs and Music in the1960s" userfied to me, because there was a lot of interesting content that could've been placed in an article, but had to be reworked. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, it's at User:Pwnage8/Sex, Drugs and Music in the1960s. Sorry for the delay. :-) - Philippe 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:AFDs

Well, I have been trying to contribute more in various places. I have been busy contributing at the help desk, wikifying articles, copy-editing articles, redesigning other pages, etc. It's not like Steve asked me to stop contributing to it. I always try to listen to his comments and opinions so that I would have an idea of what to do. Well, I will start contributing more to WP:AFD in my time. I've just been busy with other things is all. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have learned more about wikipedia policies on articles there, more specifically WP:N. I'll try to contribute there more often and of course some other places too. Oh, and I'm guessing you didn't see Wikipedia:User Page Design Center either. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know it existed. That's one of the things (if I may wax philosophical for a minute) that I love about Wikipedia - it's large enough that there's always an area to see that I didn't know existed. I also love that the 'pedia is big enough that there's a little niche for everyone. That's what makes sustainable communities. - Philippe 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was a little hungry. :P Anyway, I agree, wikipedia is a big place for everyone. I actually told others who have joined wikipedia (User:Flyboy 95, User:Chrisy5, and User:Casey906262 who I convinced to join wikipedia) in real life that wikipedia is a big city. Funny way to look at it, but it is big. And about the user page design, I'll let User:Xp54321 decide how if he would like to me to change it. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm waxing philosophical, I'll also add one of my favorite things about Wikipedia: it doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter if you're 50 or 12, there are things you can do, and people judge you based on the quality of your work, not your age. Sure, there are some notable failures (User:R comes to mind - he should have been an admin a year ago and I honestly believe has suffered because of his age), but generally speaking, people are willing to come to it with an open mind because nobody really KNOWS anything. I love that there are some folks with autism, some folks with aspergers, and some folks who - like me - are just mildly obsessive about it. Where else can you find a community like that? - Philippe 03:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's sad to hear about User:R. I don't really know what to say here, but thanks for telling me everything today. I've noticed some users who are really kind (like you :)) and I believe everyone is kind, they just don't show it very fast. Anyway, I guess I should go contribute at the AFD now. Any last comments? --RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommandbot and John Bot edit war

See this thread on ANI. One of them, probably John Bot, should be blocked, as there is clearly a major problem. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

John bot has been stopped, and I am reverting the mess. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry.... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic. That was making my head hurt. Thanks, Beta. - Philippe 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider deletion of Steve Beren article

Steve Beren

Steve Beren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Steveberen (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I'd like to draw attention to the deletion of this article. The article, which has been on Wikipedia since 2006, was previously (back in 2006, I believe) suggested for removal because of non-neutrality. This was early in its existence, and was resolved quickly, and the article remained up through 2006, 2007, and until earlier today. I'm the subject of the article, and the original author, but the accuracy and neutrality of the article was not questioned further. I believe the decision to delete was wrong. There are a multiplicity of factors applying to this biographical article. In the proposed-deletion discussion, some of these were dismissed to one extent or another, in my opinion inappropriately when considered against existing guidelines. Moreover, even if one factor (failed former candidacy) is not notable in and of itself, and even if another factor (former communist/aheist turned motivational speaker and born-again Christian) is not notable in and of itself, the totality of these and several other factors equals sufficient notability. A more careful reading of my part of the proposed-delete discussion would lead to a different conclusion, I believe. Please review carefully and consider the above rationale for undeletion - Steve Beren, 5/14/08, 8:44 pm PDT

Hi Steve,

I did, in fact, read your comments on the AFD. I still believe that notability has not been demonstrated. A failed candidacy is not a sufficient grounds for deletion, nor is the change of your religion/belief structure. I'm sorry, but I stand by my decision, and believe that I have accurately judged the community's feelings on this. - Philippe 03:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Philippe, I appreciate your quick response and your explicit statement that you considered my arguments. I respect your decision though I disagree with it. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the consensus was that neither the failed candidacy, nor the change in religious views, nor the current candidacy, nor the current news coverage and controversy, either taken separately or even taken together, equal sufficient grounds for inclusion. Though I disagree, I respect the process. May I ask a question? I am not that familiar with this process itself. I have saved on my own hard drive the content and code for the content as it existed at the time of deletion. Let's say later this year I get extensive news coverage and someone else starts a new article on me from scratch - one that at the time appears worthy of inclusion. Would it be alright, if it seemed necessary to me, to restore some of the original content that might not be included in the new research? - Steve Beren, 5/14/08, 8:59 pm PDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveberen (talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve - To follow guidelines precisely, generally you would request a deletion review, citing the new information and (hopefully) with a draft of what you'd like the article to look like. Practically speaking, if a substantial amount of time has passed, usually no one kicks up a fuss. If you'd like, I'd be happy to look at anything you draft and tell you whether I think it would survive a DRV or another deletion attempt. I assure you that I'll look at it with an open mind.

Apologies for the delayed response, I'm calling it a night. :-) - Philippe 04:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
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) 09:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal gear solid timeline

Article still exists at Metal Gear Solid timeline. Gary King (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums worldwide

Could you semi protect this article again, its much improved now and the ips are now more counter productive. My plan worked well for a while but the article is at a near peak now. Cheers. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Smile 012

Hello, you speedy-deleted this article in March, as not meeting notability requirements. I didn't see the article's content, however this is one of the top three telecom providers in Israel (internet access, international calling, and subscriber lines). I am quite surprised by this deletion, and believe it is a mistake. Odedee (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and my apologies for the delay in response. I was traveling. The speed deletion was because the article did not assert notability: from the article content there was absolutely no way to know that the company was "one of the largest" or (as I recall, though I haven't looked closely) any reliable sources to back up that claim. I have no objection to a properly sourced article about a notable company. - Philippe 18:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes

Dear User:Philippe,
since you are a Wiki-admin,
I thought you could help me out on a problem that me and other users are having trouble figuring out.
On the article List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes, the Season 2 episode Cleveland comes up whenever you click edit,
but it's not on the article it's self. Also the episode right before it, Everybody's Cried at Least Once was written by, Magda Liolis and it shows that whenever you click edit, but on the article it's self it say's it was written by, Polly Draper. Other Wikipedians and I have agreed on the discussion page that their could be a missing symbol, but it might be so little and hard to see.
Do you have any ideas? Thanx! Post back on my talk page if you can and I'll put it on the article's talk page in addition. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Best Wishes

Thanks. I replied on my talk page. Also, I assume you signed with ~~~~~, not ~~~~. I hope you will be active again soon. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	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) 07:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your short WikiBreak

I hope you stay away from The Castro while you're in SF. I've heard rumors that the evil homosexicals live there! APK ^{yada yada} 04:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish I'd had TIME. :-) My plane was so incredibly late that I had essentially no time to play, other than hitting the bar at the hotel and walking around Union Square. Such is life. :-) - Philippe 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Philippe

Erm, what the title says. ;) -- RyRy5 (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, friend. :-) - Philippe 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. Let me just make an overview of what has happened on Wikipedia since you were gone: First off, I got myself a semi-adopter (notice it's not "co-adopter"). His name is User:Useight. He recently created WP:HAU. When that was created, it was going really well until the StatusBot was blocked indef fore making so many edits in a very short time. Might I say that I've been interested in making non-administrative closures at WP:AFD. Many of my closures are correct. Not much article creation while you were gone. Baseball uniform was improved though and I recently created Pete Smith (baseball) which is currently at Template:DYK. I haven't recieved any DYKs since you left. Well, I usually go on IRC to talk about Wikipedia. I renovated many other user pages since you left. One of them was actually a bureucrat, admin, checkuser, and was part of the Arbcom. His name is User:Jpgordon. I haven't had any complaints about my editing for a long time now and I'm feeling confortable in my editing. I guess this would be a good time to let you see this long page. I guess that's all for now. Comments? -- RyRy5 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Pete Smith (baseball) was just approved earlier today. --RyRy5 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
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) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

TotientDragooned

Hi Philippe, could you please explain the inappropriateness of the username TotientDragooned. [2]. I am trying to understand these apparently mysterious blocking applications of WP:U. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing at all wrong with it. But you'll notice, that user was very recently renamed. Before that, the username was included the words "Sockpuppeteer", which is clearly a violation. I blocked for that name, and then they requested a rename. - Philippe 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

^^^^ I read SheepBot. I thought, "Wow... Philippe's into some seriously kinky stuff there." Random, I know. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's between me and fluffy the sheep, don't you?  :-P - Philippe 03:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You "baaaaad" boy. APK ^{yada yada} 05:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on 8 December 2007

Philippe: "While I appreciate your expression of goodwill toward this editor - and your word goes a long way in this - it simply has not been long enough to make me feel comfortable, given the level of harassment in which this user engaged. I, personally, will not unblock this user. Other admins may, of course, have other opinions. As of now, I think this user deserves a good long break. It speaks highly of you to request this, however."[5]

First, I got into trouble because of Nick Graves. In June-July 2008, Nick Graves & I communicated through e-mail. During that time, Nick Graves threatened to reveal my nationality on Wikipedia. Do you consider this to be an acceptable behavior? I live in a poor country. I’ve suffered discrimination from westerners in the past because of my nationality. Nick Graves revealed my nationality on Wikipedia. Tell me- How can you consider this to be an acceptable behavior? I attacked Nick Graves because of this. If he were to keep quite about my nationality, I would have never attacked him. Your also said that "I, personally, will not unblock this user." You should look at my contributions in the past. I have never said anything wrong about anybody except one person-- Nick Graves.

I am not making excuse for my behavior. I shouldn't have made those comments on the talk page of Nick Graves. It was my mistake. I will never make such comments in future. Thank you. RS1900 12:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have talked with Sarah about this. I have to accept my mistakes. Can you delete some personal information about me? If my personal information were to be deleted, I will never cause any disruption. Thank you. RS1900 14:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to consider deleting some personal information, but I don't want to commit until I've seen it. If you're uncomfortable posting it here, please use the "Email this user" feature, and I'll be happy to look at it for you. - Philippe 02:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	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) 06:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect of List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes

Thank you for protecting the page. Unfortunately, the the page still isn't as it was before. Each season list should be transcluded from the relevant season page. I have made 3 reversion edits to the page already in the last 24 hours, and don't want to find myself blocked.

Would you please be willing to edit the season 1 subsection so that the only lines in it are:

{{main|Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1)}}

{{:Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1)}}

and the season 2 subsection so that the only lines are:

{{main|Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2)}}

{{:Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2)}}

and not the entire tables which are there now. Thank you and regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of "We All Die One Day"

Thanks for completing the deletion. One question, however...why is its talk page still there? Can't you delete that as well? Thanks again Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Someone else got it though. - Philippe 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as the job gets done :) Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of my block.

Thanks for reviewing my block, but I must question your logic of no vandalism. At least two other editors felt otherwise. 1 2. Furthermore the editor in question was adding the same information to several articles along with his corresponding IP Now if this doesn't constitute vandalism in violation of a WP:BLP then just what does? I think if you look at the whole picture you will see a different story, as this was not an edit-war. Arzel (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "right-wing" is not vandalism. Period. The end. Vandalism requires ill will and ill intent. Was it a poor choice? Sure. But it's not vandalism. - Philippe 18:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
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) 08:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Michael Lacey

I was looking for information on Aaron Michael Lacey and I noticed you deleted it for lack of notability simply because he did not win an Emmy. Since when does notability require someone to win an Emmy? I looked at a the deletion review page and I can provide proof of half of those claims you said were false. I have DVD's of the show "In Our Lives" and I can prove it if you would like. Those news articles in Google News not appearing? why yes, since most if not all of the news articles were published in the early - mid 1980's and therefore would not have been published online. I can try get scanned copies of those articles if you would like. I can't do an IP check on him, but if it does not match the area of Sterling, VA, then you can safely say that it wasn't the actor writing the page, and therefore does not violate WP:COI. From my personal talks with him almost daily, I can almost safely say that he is not at all like User:AMLFILMS. Also, i read a comment on the page that he "hasn't done anything but extra roles for the last 15 years or so." 15 years back only goes into the early 90's. That ignores all of his work in the 1980's from which "In Our Lives" was aired. Rootbear75 (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Orion's Belt (game)

Hello,

I've noticed that you deleted the Orion's Belt (game) page. The page has been deleted about 3 times now by different admins, and I always present notability, and everything else you asked. I don't understand how is it possible to come here and see that the article was removed (again!) without even a notice.

Do I have to defend this article to every wikipedia administrator?

Anyway (here I go again...), can you tell me your objections on the article?

Thank you for your time and patience. Donbonifacio (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philippe, I hope you don't mind but I have restored Orion's Belt (game) from its Speedy A7 deletion, as I believe that the paragraph describing its magazine coverage (and the associated external links) are an indication of importance. I have informed the above contributor about the importance of correct citations and verifiability. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back (again)

Like I've said it before, welcome back Philippe. :) -- RyRy (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ryan! - Philippe 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. By any chance, do you have time for that review I mentioned a few months ago? -- RyRy (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is quite a good time, since it requires more reading and less typing. I'll start tonight and hopefully have something up for you in the next few days. - Philippe 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much! You can probably just drop it by my talk page when you're done with it. I really appreciate it, Philippe. :) -- RyRy (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back from me too: it's nice to see that you're better. I noticed your name appearing again at protections. Best wishes. Acalamari 22:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Acalamari! - Philippe 22:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hooray, back! Hope those wrists get better. bibliomaniac15 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Minutes Matter Studio

Hi Philippe--

I noticed that you removed the article that I wrote about Minutes Matter Studio. I am an Interior Designer and user of the product. I am trying to produce some factual non-biased information on the product to help educate others. I thought that is what encyclopedia's were designed for?? In one of the paragraphs I tried to explain the significance and importance of computer based design software compared to the way we used to do things in our industry. Is is possible to get some recommendations? If not, can you please provide me with the text from the article. I did not realize that it would be gone if deleted.

Thanks, Owen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18underpar (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page.  :-) - Philippe 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Stripe-backed Grayling

Hi Philippe,

May I ask for the rationale in deleting this article? Thanks—GRM (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Responded on your talk. - Philippe 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma GEARUP question

Oklahoma GEARUP - You really don't think that article is written as an advertisement? I realize it is non-profit & federally funded, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it needs to be completely rewritten to be encyclopedic. There's a clear COI too but I guess that does that matter for CSD?

Thanks in advance, I'm still kind of new CSD, prod, etc. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. :-) - Philippe 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the quick block of the IP which was disruptively editing Blood libel against Jews. Bstone (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NO problem. Glad I could help. I notice the page got protected too - good deal. - Philippe 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thanks for the protect on Tottenham Hotspur, Cheers Prem4eva (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. - Philippe 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Ayers

How does an article who's only reference is written by the article's subject meet notability as currently written?Horrorshowj (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A lack of references does not - automatically - make a deletable article. Notability standards are generally separate from requirements for reference. For instance, an article about an obscure former governor might not be referenced, but he's definitely notable, yes? So the answer is... reference it. Or tag it with refs needed. But we don't delete for that, generally speaking. - Philippe 05:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction)

For your information, editor Dzied Bulbash has removed the Wikipedia article Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) from the category Feminism and Health three times. (Editor Dakinijones had placed the article Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) in the category of Feminism and Health on August 18, 2008.) Bulbash currently has placed this article about a series of paintings about women’s health in the Articles for Deletion page. Perhaps this information might be of interest because of the possibility that editor Dzied Bulbash may take action to remove further articles, such as this article titled Brassier, from Wikipedia that are in the category of Feminism and Health. If anyone would like to share your thoughts on this matter of deletion of the article titled Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction), there is a discussion on the entry Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) on the Articles for Deletion Page. Thank you very much. Joseph Levi (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Thanks for dealing with Y Not Festival ... so speedily! Roisterdoister (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block

Hello Philippe. I'm terribly, terribly sorry to bother you as I'm sure you're no doubt busy, but I was wondering if you could temporarily block 124.169.18.137 for maybe 31 hours due to persistant vandalism. He's been warned multiple times and listed on AIV, yet there aren't very many admins currently watching it at the moment. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded on Master/Expert's talk. - Philippe 05:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And he is back (that was fast). Master&Expert (Talk) 05:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

Deletion review for Aaron Michael Lacey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aaron Michael Lacey. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
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) 10:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gerardo bruna

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerardo bruna with delete. Hang on - references were added to the article late today that I think support notability. Everyone had voted delete, but only two people weighed in after it was changed - myself changing my vote, and one other not. Wouldn't it be better to relist it? Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I realise you've been away, but I'm still looking for a response on this. Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been patiently waiting for you to respond ... though I notice you simply removed my request without commenting or archiving. I had assumed that you would have dealt with what you blanked on your return. Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I have been out of the country and only recently returned. If you'd like to list that one for WP:DRV please feel free to do so. I appreciate your interest, but I can not - at this moment - provide any time to look at this more closely. Best wishes. - Philippe 12:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been flamed previously for going the DRV vote without discussing with the closing Admin, so I felt that this time, I'd do it properly. I'll look into going that route, but I'd like to suggest not closing debates, if you are not available afterwards. I questioned this only a few hours after it was closed, and by that point you seemed to have been unavailable. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The role of the closing admin is to judge the consensus at the time. It is my belief that I appropriately judged it as of that time. That is why I invite you to take it to DRV, so that you can advance the case for recreation. I have no strong feelings one way or the other regarding this article. The appropriate thing to do is, as you did, to contact the closing admin. As the closing admin, I invited you to take it to DRV. I still believe that's the best process right now. - Philippe 20:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Sancho

I see that a while back you deleted a (poorly written) article on Mr. Sancho as non-notable. I think that's probably wrong. He's collaborated with Akwid (on whom our article is lousy, but they are among the most prominent Spanish-language rappers anywhere). - Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that? With citations and such? If so, I'm willing to reconsider.... 68.0.116.213 (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Public Library Terminals

Hi, I didn't log in but I would recommend reading the edit before reverting because of some naughty schoolboys are not the only users of this address. Jed keenan

156.61.19.39 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ceauntay

Hi,
I am an admin on tr-wiki and I need some help about the actions of User:Ceauntay. He has created several user sub pages which seem to be fictional. He is also active under the name User:Ceauntay58 here (doing the same) and also on other wikis (here for example). I don't know what his previous activities here were but I see that he is blocked for puppeting. Do you think this user is a global vandal and should he be blocked globbally? İyivikiler... homonihilis ileti 10:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Philippe,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Endpoints

Please could you tell exactly why you deleted my page? When if you had checked the discussion page you would have found out that I was going to expand on the information given. I'm not connected with IP Endpoints, it just happens to be an area I’m familiar with, thus I started there. I think you make it very difficult for new contributors on Wikipedia, when first you have to beg for you page not to be deleted then when one moderator agrees not to delete the page your working on, only for another one to come along and delete it anyway. I feel very disheartened.... Bifter121 (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Bifter121

Responded on user's talk. - Philippe 00:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Martha Shaw

Please could you evaluate my Martha Shaw page? It was immediately tagged for a speedy delete, and I have revised it substantially. I have made significant revisions to the Martha Shaw page. I deleted the "world-renowned musician" epithet (even though the evidence supports it). Martha Shaw is a conductor of two prestigious choirs, a recording artist (with 4 CD's to her credit--see the article, please), an award-winning teacher, and a well-known musician. Thank you! Matterhorn3 (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Matterhorn3

I would tend to err on the side of caution and let it stay, but it's fairly borderline. For example, simply recording CDs does not make for notability; generally you're going to want to prove that the CD was important (award winning, ground breaking, etc). I personally would let it stay at this point, but you should probably be prepared to defend it on AfD, just in case. I don't think it's speedy-able. - Philippe 05:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Murex SAS

Some time after you return from break, would you please re-visit the current version of the Murex article to see whether it's notable? Interested in hearing any other suggestions you may have on the same. Thank you very much for your kind attention to this matter. Ernie shoemaker (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiThanks

thank you for the quick turnaround. welcome back!

Ernie shoemaker (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New Message

Hi you have a new message at my page DFS454 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture 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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

USC

With regard to this edit, the inclusion of "LOL" is not vandalism. It is referring to the Orange Institution, the names of whose lodges include LOL (Loyal Orange Order) as you can see by the External links section of the article. Would it be ok to revert? Thanks. O Fenian (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. To the average reader it looks like vandalism, so it's a common mistake. O Fenian (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

False claims at User:Annie999/Sandbox

I asked for User:Annie999/Sandbox to be speeded as {{db-attack}}. You wrote: "I'm happy to reconsider, but please provide a policy basis. I don't think this falls under WP:ATTACK."

Statements on that page say that I've made a "false accusation," a "false COI accusation," and have used "Templates to Harrass" [sic].

I have made no false accusations. I have not harassed anyone. I have been a Wikipedia editor since July 2006, with over 1700 edits. I have never been blocked. I have never even been warned. I use my real name here, and so I am always very careful to be professional and civil.

Because I use my real name, anyone can come to Wikipedia, read statements made about me, and know to whom they're referring.

User:Annie999, otoh, is an account that was created today. I have had no interactions with this editor, as s/he has not touched a single page in article space.

These are unprovoked attacks against me, and I'd like them to be gone. Thank you for your help with this...

Dori (Talk • Contribs) 05:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me. It's gone. - Philippe 05:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Any idea when you'll be able to get to it? (and thanks!) Dori (Talk • Contribs) 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let me weigh in a bit here. I've reviewed and declined the G10.

• Editors are allowed to have viewpoints. Saying something is a "false accusation" is a judgement call. Yes, you may be an editor in good standing, but that doesn't mean that a new account can't put together a profile on your actions that s/he doesn't find appropriate. If it's not being brought forth as an RFC/U or similar case, it can be deleted in time.
• Just because you've chosen to use your real name, doesn't mean anything someone says bad against you is automagically G10-able. I use my real name too.
• Because the page evidently has some value in "preparing a case", that clearly means that it does not exist solely to disparage or attack you. If you believe that it exists primarily for such purpose, feel free to open an MfD on the page. G10 is only for cases where there is no reasonable doubt WP:ATTACK applies; MfD has the leeway to achieve consensus on disputable cases.
• There is no evidence that this account is being used in violation of the sockpuppetry rules. If there is an accusation that the account is being used to inappropriately influence consensus or in violation of a block or ban, then by all means bring that information forward. However, unless there is such evidence, the relative age of the account is irrelevant.

While I'm not unsympathetic about the stress having your actions scrutinizes can cause, I do not believe that this content is actionable as a G10. It may very well be more detrimental to the author than to you, but using G10 to suppress what appears to be a legitimate attempt (however wrong, misguided, or just plain mean spirited it may be) to formulate a "case" is not in Wikipedia's best interests. If the author is violating community standards, then he should be sanctioned appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jclemens is probably correct - it would be better to take this one to MfD. My temptation to delete it was based on the fact that the user hadn't made any mainspace edits and appeared to be creating a "hit list", which *could* be considered an attack page, but the fact of the matter is that speedys are for uncontroversial deletes, and this one would be controversial. I stand corrected. - Philippe 15:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out at this point that most admins (and particularly in my case) will not get involved in content disputes. That includes things like a non-blatant COI, etc. We have mediation and arbitration for that. The role of an administrator is to be a janitor: I'm not going to negotiate your dispute. That's not where my talent lies. I encourage you to think about Mediation in this case. - Philippe 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would not have even considered involving you in this. But if another user is going to rub my face in falsehoods and unfounded accusations, I'm going to defend myself in the very place where I see them. I understand your position and I won't trouble you again.

DrJamesX (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Okay, I'm baffled here... At the time I asked for User:Annie999/Sandbox to be deleted, it contained several sections—and according to the history, all of it had been written by User:Annie999 (+ one sentence written by User:DrJamesX, to which I had no objection as it wasn't about me). But now, User:DrJamesX is defending (over the course of 14 edits) why he wrote it. Who is actually behind this? I think it's fair for me to know who's working on a "case" against me.

This type of confusion is exactly why I stopped editing the Ferguson article a couple of weeks ago—life's too short. But somehow, that doesn't stop the hits from coming. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 09:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Smratlik

Another editor turned him in to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse. He's likely a sock, because the only ones who ever inquire about unblocking the page turn out to be socks; and when asked what new information they want to add to the article, they're evasive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as much, but there's not enough there for me to feel comfortable taking the action myself. - Philippe 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the same pattern as a few weeks ago. This time, instead of confronting him directly, we'll let the checkuser take its course. He's a banned user, so presumably it would get a priority. I was hoping for a short block until the checkuser comes back, but he'll be watched closely by several users. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

Hi Philippe, Could you please protect my userpage and talk page? The IP address who was involved with repeatedly inserting vandalism on Talk:Winnipeg Folk Festival has changed his IP address. Thanks - Fastily (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Done.  :-) - Philippe 05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

As requested, if the disruption were continuing, you asked to be contacted. Since it is constantly being redirected, a disruption protection might help folk find a consensus one way or the other. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification: I've fully protected the page. - Philippe 16:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection. I hope this brings folk to the discussion page. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Page protection is not supposed to be about enforcing your own personal view

You wrote this "Protection from Redirect: in line with AFD" That's not how page protection works. You aren't supposed to pick a side, and especially not when there was no consensus with the AFD. You;'ve completely misrepresented the AFD decision with your edit comment. If the AFD was to "Keep" you might have a point, but even there the person locking the page isn't supposed to be taking a side. It would behoove you o undo your mistake and remove yourself from enforcement of the page in question. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not possible to effectively enforce upon a page when there are questions as to neutrality. Since I made a really rotten edit summary (which, while not particularly reflecting my own point of view, also managed to enflame the situation), I'm going to withdraw, revert myself, and recuse myself. - Philippe 18:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unholy Alliance DAB RFUP

Please see my note at your decision and explain. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it got moved, here it is...

Unholy Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotection, User:Avraham despite having Admin status, keeps blanking WP links to "invisible Government" or "Bootleggers and Baptists" in

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unholy_Alliance&oldid=274742918

as WP:OR despite relevant uses shown on those pages. He seems to have committed WP:vandalism while accusing others. Some Admin not connected to him by political inclination please look at these and render an opinion. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Declined, the links in question are clearly OR. - Philippe 04:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how the direct quote and common usage are WP:OR. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ocean's Three and a Half

Hey, you previously weighed in at Talk:Ocean's_Three_and_a_Half#Left_out_of_Adult_Swim to inform other editors about the WP:NOR policy. Could you take a look at Talk:Ocean's_Three_and_a_Half#List_of_songs_with_girls_names, further up the page? Sorry to be a bother but a different user is pressing a similar issue, wants to violate WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, in order to add unsourced info to the article. I think a comment by another administrator on the issue would be helpful. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:INDEFIP

It may not have been your intent, but you have blocked a handful of IPs indefinitely. IPs typically should not be indefinitely blocked. Would you have a problem if I (or you) lifted these blocked? Thanks, –xeno (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked IPs

• 152.10.192.130 Philippe 20070723200109.00 Vandalism
• 65.66.126.145 Philippe 20070724012521.00 Vandalism: Vandalism Only.
• 71.226.47.69 Philippe 20070724044109.00
• 217.187.139.229 Philippe 20070728014139.00 Spamming links to external sites
• 218.185.11.130 Philippe 20070827040206.00 Vandalism-only account

Ah, thanks for reminding me - I had forgotten. Yes, I've unblocked and will keep an eye for further vandalism. cheers, –xeno (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
• Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
• News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
• Dispatches: Valued pictures
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why Reddy Surnames Page deleted

Why Reddy Surnames Page deleted --Neal007 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The page was discussed at an "articles for deletion" review, and found to be out of our standards for what a WIkipedia page should be. You can read the discussion by going here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reddy_Surnames. Let me know if I can be of further help. :) - Philippe 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Novus Ordo Seclorum

If you read the article, it isn't a content dispute... it's vandalism. But thanks for protecting. Blueboar (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Full protection?

Why did you fully protect Music Box (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Daydream (Mariah Carey album)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) when I asked for a semi? There's no legitimate content dispute: just an effort by Petergriffin9901 to force changes into the articles. Since he is a blocked editor and all of his current socks are blocked, semi-protection would have been quite sufficient.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what, you're right. Those are socks, and a semi is appropriate. I'm reverting myself. - Philippe 04:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The weirdest one of the bunch was JustarR24, who I reported as a sock of JuStar, another prolific puppeteer on Mariah Carey articles. Per the discussion on User talk:JustarR24, it turned out to be Petergriffin9901 pretending to be JuStar. I have no idea what was going through his mind when he decided to do that.—Kww(talk) 04:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah, that's really weird. I notice that account is already blocked, so I slapped a template on the talk page. - Philippe 05:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kingcoconut again

Hi, I noticed that you recently gave Kingcoconut a brief ban for disruptive editing. It looks as if s/he is also editing anonymously as 123.211.78.219 and has been posting a number of personal attacks against Autarch all over the place, e.g. [6][7][8]. I've filed a request for sockpuppet investigation, but in the meantime could you look at whether reblocking is appropriate? --GenericBob (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that one quacks. Blocked. Thanks! - Philippe 17:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --GenericBob (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RE

I'm not doing anything, He vandalized after final warning given, personal attack, NPOV, and needs to be blocked. I'm just trying to clean up a mess he's making. I can't avoid him, he's seeking ME out. He's cyberstalked me and several friends and it's really gotten out of hand. RF23 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

His final warning was several weeks ago: not sufficiently recent to be actionable in this case, and I don't really see anything that's vandalism in his recent record. There may be POV issues, but that isn't vandalism. It's best that you ignore him. I've given him the same message. - Philippe 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, Him, User:98.26.212.135 (blocked), and Dantzler29 (vandalized but not blocked) all appear to be the same trouble causing person. RF23 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You can file a sockpuppet request to confirm that. I'll look into that, but my very strong preference is that you walk away. - Philippe 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just keep an eye out on him. RF23 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

huh?

"..the flying spaghetti monster.."? sounds scary. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster.  :-) - Philippe 23:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

lol ... sigh, I'm just so far behind the times I guess. ;-) — Ched :  ?  23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU DELETE CALIFORNIAN INDEPENDENCE!!!!!!!!!

WTH WERE YOU THINKING!!! Many Californian's talk about it as a part of a casual discussion. Of course no major publications would be indicate it due to the fear of being labled a treasonist person or a terrorist! I ask that only a person who displayes Californian residency (and can LEGALY prove it) shall hold the power to make decisions in relation to Californian Wiki affairs. MKLPTR (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We already have the Cascadia (independence movement),. and State of Jefferson well -referenced articles, for which nobody has yet been arrested. Might I suggest that instead of attacking editors for deleting an unreferenced opinion piece, you might consider gathering references? If you have an issue with the deletion, please address it at WP:DRV. This is Wikipedia, a global publication, not CaliWiki, (the wiki that only California residents can edit). Acroterion _(talk) 12:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And I just noticed, this was deleted almost a year ago and you're just now getting around to being outraged? Acroterion _(talk) 12:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This one's getting a big ol' eyeroll. Acroterion is right... WP:DRV (for deletion review) is your recourse here. I don't think I'll be reversing myself on that one. - Philippe 22:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for lashing out. I saw the link on a Facebook group and was pissed that the link was broken. But serriously, I don't see why such topic would be deleted, the discussion had some positive reviews on the page. I consider myself to be a Californianist (I see new Wiki page for this one!!, If one has not been made). We talk about it alot for we get angry with texans who say their the ONLY state who has been their own country and are the ONLY ones who can seperate from the union. Maybe such topic could be merged with California Republic and add whatever was on the Californian independence page into the California Republic. I would just like such trivial topics to out of staters, to be handled by those who take such topics seriously. MKLPTR (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, now we can talk. :-) First, let me say that I don't consider ANY topic that's on here trivial: with the number of topics we have, there's no way I could possibly be an expert on all of them, so I evaluate each of them as they come. And by the way - I call Vermont my "family home" - Vermont, as you may know, is another state that was previously its own republic and has an active secession movement. Second, this particular article was deleted after an articles for deletion discussion, which you can read here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Californian independence. My job as an administrator is not to make a judgment under these circumstances, but rather to enforce the will of the community. In that discussion - although it was heated - it was my opinion that there was sufficient consensus to delete the article. Now, with that out of the way, let me also say that I don't have any personal objection to the recreation of an article at that topic which meets our guidelines: sufficiently sourced, non-trivial news coverage, etc. In fact, as Acroterion mentioned above, we have several similar articles. Here's my suggestion to you: write a draft in your userspace. Then, let me know and I'll look at it, make suggestions, and help you make an iron clad case that it could survive another AfD discussion. In that process, we'll find out whether there are sufficient sources and non-trivial coverage. How's that sound? - Philippe 15:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - I should also say that I'm traveling for the next 72 hours or so, so I may be slow to respond, but I welcome further conversation. And it occurs to me that there is another option: you can always request a deletion review to see if there's sufficient support to reinstate the old article. I think it's likely that would fail, though, and it wouldn't create radical change to the article to keep the same thing from happening again. Re-writing it better, in my opinion. - Philippe 15:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hello Philippe, i was wondering if you can help me with a little problem. Mariah Carey pages have been blocked for a while so only administrators can edit them. The thing is that were all making a new page for her upcoming new album Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel but since her previous album is blocked we cant fix the chronology in order for it to go to the new page. To fix the problem all you would need to do is to go to the Ballads and fix the chronology so that it'll go to her new album page.

Thanks a million and i appreciate it if you have time to correct it.....:D--Maester Seymour (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love to help, but I am literally climbing on a plane in a couple of hours... you can use the template {{editprotected}} to request a change to a protected page. Failing that, you might contact User:FisherQueen, who is really good at stuff like that. If she can't help you out, I'll take a look at it when I'm back in town. - Philippe 15:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!ill give her a try...thanx...and have a safe trip!...:)--Maester Seymour (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A Cookie For U!!

--Maester Seymour (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maester Seymour has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Im choosing to spread Wiki Love with a fellow editor, who always has time to help and be friendly...:). Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar

Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the notification - thank you. - Philippe 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Contacting Cary Bass (for purposes of ID verification for the Board of Directors election)

Both emails I sent to cbass@wikimediafoundation.org were immediately returned to me as undeliverable. Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Handled :) - Philippe 01:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Election notice: please distribute wisely

Please pardon this diversion from our normal responsibilities for a message from the Board of Trustees Election Committee. It is SOOOO very important that this go to as many places as possible. Perhaps you could link to it in your signature? Or maybe drop notes on the talk pages of trusted friends who should running? I posted this message earlier today. - Philippe 12:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you may be aware, there is concern that the sitenotices regarding submission of candidacy for the Board of Trustees election were not seen anywhere but Meta after the 11th of this month. Because of the potentially massive consequence of this, and to encourage a full and active election, the election committee has determined that:

- Candidacies will be accepted through July 27th at 23:59 (UTC) - The period for questioning candidates begins immediately. Candidates that are "late to the party" will, no doubt, be scrutinized by the community. The Committee hopes that the community will work to actively ensure that all candidates receive equivalent questioning. - The dates of election will not change. The election will begin on 28 July and end on 10 August.

Please know that we recognize the radical nature of altering the schedule in the midst of the election and would not do it if we did not absolutely believe that there was a possibility that others may be interested and qualified and may not have known about the key dates.

For the committee, Philippe

(in my capacity as a volunteer, and not as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please disable protection for Template:Multicol temporarily

Hello. I want to use this template in my Lithuanian article. But I can't do it unless you disable the protection of it for a moment. Shakurazz (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I am now an employee of the Foundation, I don't take administrative actions unless they are particularly egregious and there's no one else around to do it, to avoid the appearance of Foundation influencing content. May i suggest that you ask on WP:RFPP and say that I have recused myself? - Philippe 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thank you :) Shakurazz (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Authonomy

I understand; I've already discussed it with another editor, and I realize that it was rather hasty.-- fetchcomms☛ 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. Unfortunately, sometimes I just hate when people make horrible articles that definitely should not exist. I guess I just have to be a bit more patient...-- fetchcomms☛ 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Trinity Church, Swarthmore

I protest this deletion. Apparently you have taken it upon yourself to circumscribe severely the scope of Wikipedia. I think it's a bad idea. The purpose of Wikipedia, I thought, was to encourage sharing of information. Apparently your role is to to destroy the contributions made by others. I trust that you will now devote yourself to eradicating all articles about parish churches, which do not meet your unspecified definition of "importance." One might think that an institution that survives for over a century is qualification enough. In any event, I guess that it is your view that Wikipedia has gotten too big and that too many contributions have been made, so let's shrink it!

I have to admit that I have never before felt so negatively toward Wikipedia. If you represent the new guardians, I am not optimistic. Can't you instead focus your attention on the many crappy articles in need of serious editing or deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoosierhistorian (talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the user's talk page. - Philippe 18:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Supernova SN 1987A and its discovery.

Hi Phillipe. You erroneously listed "Colin Henshaw" as a co-discoverer of supernova SN 1987A on the article for that astronomical event. Mr. Henshaw was not, in fact, a co-discoverer of the supernova, although he has dedicated himself to claiming a co-discovery credit. Alas, Colin Henshaw is in absolutely no way entitled to any. It's certainly possible that he, like many other amateur astronomers, observed the event at the time (and subsequently), as the Large Magellanic Cloud in which it occurred is a prominent and popular object for study by those in the Southern Hemisphere. The discovery credit goes to Ian Shelton, Oscar Duhalde and Albert Jones, as per the previous edits of the article and - far more importantly - the CBAT announcement by the International Astronomical Union. See IAUCBAT: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iauc/04300/04316.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.161.63 (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Henshaw has appropriately provided a reference to verify his claims, which was provided in this article. Please do not remove OTRS labeled edits without discussion first. I have reverted your removal. - Philippe 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please present the reference(s). Claiming a co-discovery credit on one of the biggest astronomical events of the past few hundred years requires supporting evidence and so far there has been none presented. The only references Mr Henshaw has ever provided are ones he or his friends have created. 203.173.161.63 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism?

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I was having a little nap (trying to get over pneumonia...it sucks). On the example you used, the user wiped out several "market" areas and just called it the "Pittsburgh area". This is incorrect as WTAE-TV is seen through out northern West Virginia, eastern Ohio, and a chunk of Western Maryland. I seen it as an unnecessary move and potential vandalism.

Another example was this change in the start date of a Virginia radio station. This happens quite often. No information to back the change up, just a change. We got by the FCC's information and if there is a reference, then we change it. I am flexible and if that user would come back with a reference saying the station was launched in the 40s, I would apologize.

These are just a couple examples. We have a couple long-term vandals that are always popping up, plus the small-time ones, so the term "vandalism" gets thrown around quite often. If you see something that wasn't vandalism, please let me know and I will gladly revert back. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The heard

Your removal of the speedy tag for The heard was in error. The article does not credibly assert the importance of the group - please remember that "credibly" is now part of the wording for speedy-delete notices. I have re-posted a speedy notice. If you insist on declining it, we'll just have to go through the laborious AfD process for an article that obviously does not belong here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary accusing you of "vandalism"

Dear Philippe, I visited the page of Neutralhomer today after s/he had been extremely rude to me. I noticed that this user has been flinging around the edit summary that accuses others of vandalism where no bad faith is involved.

Please note that User Arthur Rubin was recently banned from using Twinkle due to his use of this accusatory edit summary. Please let me know if you hear of any further unwarranted use of this edit summary. Tony (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism, etc.

OK, exactly what did I do to require the slightly rude/threating post on my talk page? I have been off Wiki for a few hours now and my last revert was clear vandalism, so I am kinda confused. I am also slightly annoyed as the recent monitoring of my edits and my use of TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's do this, cause I am having a bit of trouble understanding which edits are concerning you. Can you give me a couple diffs? I need to know what to correct before going into mentoring. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you notice, that when I templated them for vandalism, in each case, I gave them a Warn1 which politely tells them to use the sandbox for experiments and such. Warn1 is kinda the light touch when it comes to templets. It actually welcomes them to Wikipedia at the beginning. The person never vandaled again and I considered that a win-win. A win I wasn't rude and no blocks had to be issued and a win the user is still out there editing away. That works for me. I have the options of rollback and AGF and I do use AGF when I feel it is needed, in these cases (with the exception of KORB, which I will get to in a moment) I didn't feel it was needed. In the case of KORB, I reverted that AGF at first, the user came back, I marked as Warn1. It seemed like repeat edits. I checked with the station's website prior to reverting and the person referenced in the edit removed is still at the station, so it seemed, to me, that it was vandalism. I do take the time to research my edits before making them. If you can find someone who isn't going to breathe down my neck while I edit, I will go with the mentoring, but I feel it might cramp my editing style, but will consider it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit summaries come automatically. I use TWINKLE, so I don't have any control on those. That would be something for the TWINKLE people. I can assure you I don't leave any edit summaries when using TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I like TWINKLE cause I can mass revert a TON of edits at once and in the radio and TV station field that I work in on Wiki, we have a TON of continued vandals and TWINKLE is indispensable for reverting their mass edits. I don't feel I should be held responsible for an edit summary I am technically not leaving. That is something that is pre-programmed into TWINKLE. That is something that should be taken up with the people who programing TWINKLE. I do agree a Warn1 shouldn't say "vandalism" on the edit summary, it should say something like "left note about the potential of bad edits" or something like that. But again, that is not for me to decide. I don't feel that something I have no control over (the edit summaries) I should be punished for...and by punished, I mean prevented from using TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I will be away from the computer for about 20 to 30 minutes, so my replies might be a little few and far between. I will check when I get back. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have returned from my slight break. We can continue with our conversation. Sorry for the delay. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SF Meetup #11

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 11
	Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2010
	Time: 15:00 (3PM)
	Place: WMFoundation offices
prev: Meetup 10 - next: Meetup 12

This is posted to the groups by request. Please sign up on the Invite list for future announcements. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

I greatly appreciate the Barnstar. Thank you very much. It's a nice feeling to learn that someone was able to benefit from my help. Much obliged.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll try and keep the intro page in mind - lots to read though >=) Siimon-bii (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Markus Eliance

Hi, I see you declined the db-repost on Markus Eliance. I'm not an admin: could you please copy me on a diff between the AFD'd article and the new version? The creator says there are new references, but I haven't spotted them yet. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi - actually, I sat and thought about this one for a while: it is my opinion that this meets notability guidelines, regardless of the previous AFD. The major point to me is that he's been published in notable publications. So, while I would seriously have preferred a DRV on it, I don't think it qualifies for speedy delete. - Philippe 23:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability of publications was covered in the AFD, and on Talk:Markus Eliance the creator notes that he's only added two references in the repost, both from primary sources. So this really is a nearly-identical repost to what was AFD'd, and should therefore be speedied as a re-creation of deleted material. But if you think the AFD was flawed, then would you like to start a DRV? Otherwise, we could move the article to the Incubator. Note that there's also a copy at User:Archer Drezelan/Markus Eliance. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I've gone ahead with a second AFD as you suggested, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markus Eliance: your comments there would be welcome. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

4 skeletons

Thank you for looking at the CSD on the above. The creator, User:4 skeletons, did remove the CSD in an attempt to fend of the deletion. I left advice on their talk page for them to use the hangon template. However as I failed to get any hits apart from Wikipedia on googling "4 skeletons" +band +"Albert de leon" I doubt that they could make a hang on case. What action do you suggest I take in future if someone removes a CSD template rather than adding hang on?--Peter cohen (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think their user page contains exactly the same stuff that was in the article. It wasnt big.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A7

you probably didn;t spot that school article cannot be deleted here via A7-- I'm referring to Chippewa Middle School, Shoreview, MN. I know it's totally unsatisfactory--and that we almost never keep middle school articles in any case; I have restored it, and prodded. It could possibly have been deleted as empty of encyclopedic content, but I consider it unfair to do this immediately to a new article where the article itself indicates it is under construction. I'll keep an eye on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, I knew that and simply missed it. Thanks for the reminder. - Philippe 00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott

Hi Philippe, would you please do me the favor of undeleting and userfying this page? I think I could fix whatever notability issues may have existed, as this firm is most certainly notable. Just FYI, Senator Rick Santorum works there. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, and at User:Eastlaw/Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott  :-) - Philippe 21:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a bit busy with school stuff right now, but I will work on the article and move it back to mainspace when I have time. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WCTI-TV on RPP

Come on...do they have be vandalizing the page ever second to get protection? It is obviously the same guy. The same "thank you bye" bull that required the page be protected previous, why not now? Why leave it open, so the user can jump IPs (again!) and continue their brand of vandalism? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protection is not something we do lightly - it's something we do only when standard vandal thwapping becomes untenable. In this case, there was a single instance. When it's proven that we can't keep up with it in standard practice, then we can consider page protection. The guideline says "Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option." In this case, we don't have a significant period of disruption, and we have not tried blocking. Closing pages from editing is a last resort - it's a strong statement against "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". - Philippe 00:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We have tried blocking, numerous times, it hasn't worked. The blocks are 31 hours or less (sometimes more, but it is rare) and the vandal comes back with a new IP (same catch phrase) and keeps at it. I never said to block the entire page from editing, just IP users....hence my request of "temporary protection". If we only block IP users (while we look for ways to get rid of our little vandal friend, which I am working on currently) it will allow the page to not be vandalized. Leaving it completely unblocked because nothing is happening "right now" and saying there is only a "single instance" is not only incorrect, but wrong. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't believe that the vandalism here rises to such a level that we can't handle it with reverts. The specific example given in page protection policy is Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Jesus, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism.. The level of vandalism here is nowhere NEAR that level. We can handle it with reverts, so we should. When it becomes too much to keep up with, we can consider page protection again, but we're not there yet. - Philippe 00:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

To compare a television station page to Jesus is something, I think, John Lennon did with The Beatles and it didn't work out so well for them. If you want to use a highly viewed, highly edited page like Jesus as a comparison for vandalism, then NOTHING would get protected. WCTI-TV gets about 50 to 100 edits a year, Jesus on the other hand gets about 50 to 100 edits a week (if not a day). So to compare the two (especially on vandalism stats) is like comparing apples and oranges, it doesn't work out well either. WCTI-TV has a continous stream of vandalism from an IP hopping vandal that blocks are not stopping and only protection will stop...if you want to let the vandal roam free, that is on you. I will work with another admin on range blocks and other remedies on stopping this vandal. Thanks for your "help". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A range block isn't going to be particularly effective here - you're looking at blocking a large part of the internet. I know it's frustrating, but you really really need to understand that the core of who we are is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia. That means we maintain pages in an unlocked state as long as we possibly can. I'll also point out that the example given is not intended to be exact, but does demonstrate the level to which the vandalism has to rise before we pre-emptively protect. I understand that you're frustrated - I think you're letting this guy get to you. Check out WP:DENY, please. - Philippe 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, aren't you full of fun and excitement tonight. According to you, range blocks won't work, page protection isn't needed, I should use a policy the guy could honestly give a damn less about to stop him. Right. Anyway, besides that great idea, what else ya got? Cause right now all admins can do is block his IPs and hope he uses the same one over and over so they can block it for a really long time, which he has been smart not to do. Right now, collateral damage is the least of my worries or cares. If we can stop a vandal from causing problems while (unfortunately) forcing a couple users from their IPs to username accounts, I am happy....because the vandal is gone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That actually makes me sad. The truth is, this guy is in inconsequential vandal. We have many who are much much worse problems to us. This guy just needs to be reverted until he gets bored and goes away - and he will. He's NOT someone that we have to use all the tools on. Doing that just feeds his ego. Ignore him - revert him when he shows up - i *promise* that will make a difference. But the more resources we throw at him, the more it inflates his sense of self-worth.

The one requirement to participate in this project is that you understand that we are collaborative. That means everyone gets the opportunity to edit, as much as we can. That means not semi-protecting or full protecting unless there's no other choice. This is a core tenant of the encyclopedia. It saddens me that you don't see that. - Philippe 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent)We did the ol' ignore route with User:BenH and User:Dingbat2007, they were still around and still vandalizing. It wasn't until we used the full force of every resource we had that that one of them gave up and the other seriously hampered. So yeah, I think we should use every resource we got, slam the hell outta him and if a couple IP users have to use accounts (by the way, I support Wikipedia being accounts only) to edit, so be it. It stops the vandal and we are better for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Picasa Web Albums Uploader

WP:CSD#A10 states that "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. Therefore, the article Picasa Web Albums Uploader does not fit under this category. At least consider a redirect. Thank you!-- ❝iBen❞ 02:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with a redirect at all. :) - Philippe 02:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Great!-- ❝iBen❞ 04:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Er

I'm concerned that this was not correct. You state that the article asserts notability. Please note that the "Canada's largest independent Think Tanks." is not the subject of this article, but rather the parent of the division. By this argument, I could write "Hipocrite is an employee of one of France's largest Banks." Would that be an assertion of notability? Hipocrite (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but if you were a division of one of France's largest banks, you'd be notable. :) There's a difference in granularity there, don't you think? :) - Philippe 19:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. "Division" is a meaningless term - and I dont think divisions inherit notability. For instance, the world's largest company by revenue is ExxonMobil. One division of ExxonMobil is the New Jersey Gas Station Accounting Division. Would an article called "ExxonMobil New Jersey Gas Station Accounting Division" be notable for being a division of the single most notable company in the world? Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Czuwaj Przemyśl

I request you undo your deletion. The club used to play in the top division and as such it is notable.  Dr. Loosmark  09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please link me to the page in question, or the redlink to that page? I delete a LOT of pages... - Philippe 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Czuwaj Przemyśl.  Dr. Loosmark  22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)]

There's no assertion of notability in that article. If you'd like, I'd be happy to restore it to your userspace so that you could expand on it... - Philippe 02:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice.  Dr. Loosmark  12:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, it's at User:Loosmark/Czuwaj Przemyśl - Philippe 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.  Dr. Loosmark  10:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Young BNP

You have seen fit to lock this article whithout, it seems, taking any notice of what has actually been happening on the talk page. To summarise, an editor insisted that the BNP is not fascist. A reference was supplied to demonstrate that it is. This he did not accept. Further references were supplied. These he did not accept. Throughout, he continually refused to accept the perfectly reliable references that myself and others were using to support our position and based his edits on, to paraphrase, "They're not fascist because they say they're not", without a shred of supporting evidence. He eventually gave up, after a prolonged wrangle that can only be described as disruptive. Another editor, has come along and removed 'fascism' again because George Orwell wrote about use of the word in 1948 and, oddly, because there are too many references! So, the editor who has almost single-handedly caused major disruption has given in, someone else comes along and makes his edit for him, and now you've locked it! You ought to have seen that there was consensus that the article should describe the BNP as 'fascist', based on impeccable citations. There was no need to lock it. Emeraude (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I spent a great deal of time reading the talk page. It seems clear to me that this is emotionally charged and that discussion in itself convinced me that we're not to a place where it can be considered consensus based to include that descriptor. I stand by my action. You may request that it be added using the {{editprotected}} template, though I rather suspect most other administrators would share my opinion on this. - Philippe 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User subpages

Thanks for all the deletes. It feels good to clean house! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure :) - Philippe 04:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New Battlefront Foundation

Hi Philippe. Could you take a look at New Battlefront Foundation and tell me whether it is likely to meet DB-SPAM or not? I have commented on the talk page as to why I think it's not notable. Thank you. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As it's written, I agree with you. It doesn't demonstrate multiple non-trivial mentions... you might work with the author to see if you can help bring it up to standards?- Philippe 05:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be good, but lacking any available sources, what could be done? (Serious question.) Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that they can point you toward some sources that aren't easily found on Google. :) - Philippe 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thank you. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! Let me know if I can help. - Philippe 05:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

hey jerkoff

u dont no a god damm thing about beer, dont revert my edits ok loser —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurobeerguide (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please disable protection for Template:Multicol temporarily

Hello. I want to use this template in my Lithuanian article. But I can't do it unless you disable the protection of it for a moment. Shakurazz (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I am now an employee of the Foundation, I don't take administrative actions unless they are particularly egregious and there's no one else around to do it, to avoid the appearance of Foundation influencing content. May i suggest that you ask on WP:RFPP and say that I have recused myself? - Philippe 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thank you :) Shakurazz (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Authonomy

I understand; I've already discussed it with another editor, and I realize that it was rather hasty.-- fetchcomms☛ 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. Unfortunately, sometimes I just hate when people make horrible articles that definitely should not exist. I guess I just have to be a bit more patient...-- fetchcomms☛ 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Trinity Church, Swarthmore

I protest this deletion. Apparently you have taken it upon yourself to circumscribe severely the scope of Wikipedia. I think it's a bad idea. The purpose of Wikipedia, I thought, was to encourage sharing of information. Apparently your role is to to destroy the contributions made by others. I trust that you will now devote yourself to eradicating all articles about parish churches, which do not meet your unspecified definition of "importance." One might think that an institution that survives for over a century is qualification enough. In any event, I guess that it is your view that Wikipedia has gotten too big and that too many contributions have been made, so let's shrink it!

I have to admit that I have never before felt so negatively toward Wikipedia. If you represent the new guardians, I am not optimistic. Can't you instead focus your attention on the many crappy articles in need of serious editing or deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoosierhistorian (talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the user's talk page. - Philippe 18:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Supernova SN 1987A and its discovery.

Hi Phillipe. You erroneously listed "Colin Henshaw" as a co-discoverer of supernova SN 1987A on the article for that astronomical event. Mr. Henshaw was not, in fact, a co-discoverer of the supernova, although he has dedicated himself to claiming a co-discovery credit. Alas, Colin Henshaw is in absolutely no way entitled to any. It's certainly possible that he, like many other amateur astronomers, observed the event at the time (and subsequently), as the Large Magellanic Cloud in which it occurred is a prominent and popular object for study by those in the Southern Hemisphere. The discovery credit goes to Ian Shelton, Oscar Duhalde and Albert Jones, as per the previous edits of the article and - far more importantly - the CBAT announcement by the International Astronomical Union. See IAUCBAT: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iauc/04300/04316.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.161.63 (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Henshaw has appropriately provided a reference to verify his claims, which was provided in this article. Please do not remove OTRS labeled edits without discussion first. I have reverted your removal. - Philippe 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please present the reference(s). Claiming a co-discovery credit on one of the biggest astronomical events of the past few hundred years requires supporting evidence and so far there has been none presented. The only references Mr Henshaw has ever provided are ones he or his friends have created. 203.173.161.63 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism?

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I was having a little nap (trying to get over pneumonia...it sucks). On the example you used, the user wiped out several "market" areas and just called it the "Pittsburgh area". This is incorrect as WTAE-TV is seen through out northern West Virginia, eastern Ohio, and a chunk of Western Maryland. I seen it as an unnecessary move and potential vandalism.

Another example was this change in the start date of a Virginia radio station. This happens quite often. No information to back the change up, just a change. We got by the FCC's information and if there is a reference, then we change it. I am flexible and if that user would come back with a reference saying the station was launched in the 40s, I would apologize.

These are just a couple examples. We have a couple long-term vandals that are always popping up, plus the small-time ones, so the term "vandalism" gets thrown around quite often. If you see something that wasn't vandalism, please let me know and I will gladly revert back. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The heard

Your removal of the speedy tag for The heard was in error. The article does not credibly assert the importance of the group - please remember that "credibly" is now part of the wording for speedy-delete notices. I have re-posted a speedy notice. If you insist on declining it, we'll just have to go through the laborious AfD process for an article that obviously does not belong here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary accusing you of "vandalism"

Dear Philippe, I visited the page of Neutralhomer today after s/he had been extremely rude to me. I noticed that this user has been flinging around the edit summary that accuses others of vandalism where no bad faith is involved.

Please note that User Arthur Rubin was recently banned from using Twinkle due to his use of this accusatory edit summary. Please let me know if you hear of any further unwarranted use of this edit summary. Tony (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism, etc.

OK, exactly what did I do to require the slightly rude/threating post on my talk page? I have been off Wiki for a few hours now and my last revert was clear vandalism, so I am kinda confused. I am also slightly annoyed as the recent monitoring of my edits and my use of TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's do this, cause I am having a bit of trouble understanding which edits are concerning you. Can you give me a couple diffs? I need to know what to correct before going into mentoring. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you notice, that when I templated them for vandalism, in each case, I gave them a Warn1 which politely tells them to use the sandbox for experiments and such. Warn1 is kinda the light touch when it comes to templets. It actually welcomes them to Wikipedia at the beginning. The person never vandaled again and I considered that a win-win. A win I wasn't rude and no blocks had to be issued and a win the user is still out there editing away. That works for me. I have the options of rollback and AGF and I do use AGF when I feel it is needed, in these cases (with the exception of KORB, which I will get to in a moment) I didn't feel it was needed. In the case of KORB, I reverted that AGF at first, the user came back, I marked as Warn1. It seemed like repeat edits. I checked with the station's website prior to reverting and the person referenced in the edit removed is still at the station, so it seemed, to me, that it was vandalism. I do take the time to research my edits before making them. If you can find someone who isn't going to breathe down my neck while I edit, I will go with the mentoring, but I feel it might cramp my editing style, but will consider it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit summaries come automatically. I use TWINKLE, so I don't have any control on those. That would be something for the TWINKLE people. I can assure you I don't leave any edit summaries when using TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I like TWINKLE cause I can mass revert a TON of edits at once and in the radio and TV station field that I work in on Wiki, we have a TON of continued vandals and TWINKLE is indispensable for reverting their mass edits. I don't feel I should be held responsible for an edit summary I am technically not leaving. That is something that is pre-programmed into TWINKLE. That is something that should be taken up with the people who programing TWINKLE. I do agree a Warn1 shouldn't say "vandalism" on the edit summary, it should say something like "left note about the potential of bad edits" or something like that. But again, that is not for me to decide. I don't feel that something I have no control over (the edit summaries) I should be punished for...and by punished, I mean prevented from using TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I will be away from the computer for about 20 to 30 minutes, so my replies might be a little few and far between. I will check when I get back. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have returned from my slight break. We can continue with our conversation. Sorry for the delay. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SF Meetup #11

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 11
	Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2010
	Time: 15:00 (3PM)
	Place: WMFoundation offices
prev: Meetup 10 - next: Meetup 12

This is posted to the groups by request. Please sign up on the Invite list for future announcements. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

I greatly appreciate the Barnstar. Thank you very much. It's a nice feeling to learn that someone was able to benefit from my help. Much obliged.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll try and keep the intro page in mind - lots to read though >=) Siimon-bii (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Markus Eliance

Hi, I see you declined the db-repost on Markus Eliance. I'm not an admin: could you please copy me on a diff between the AFD'd article and the new version? The creator says there are new references, but I haven't spotted them yet. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi - actually, I sat and thought about this one for a while: it is my opinion that this meets notability guidelines, regardless of the previous AFD. The major point to me is that he's been published in notable publications. So, while I would seriously have preferred a DRV on it, I don't think it qualifies for speedy delete. - Philippe 23:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability of publications was covered in the AFD, and on Talk:Markus Eliance the creator notes that he's only added two references in the repost, both from primary sources. So this really is a nearly-identical repost to what was AFD'd, and should therefore be speedied as a re-creation of deleted material. But if you think the AFD was flawed, then would you like to start a DRV? Otherwise, we could move the article to the Incubator. Note that there's also a copy at User:Archer Drezelan/Markus Eliance. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I've gone ahead with a second AFD as you suggested, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markus Eliance: your comments there would be welcome. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

4 skeletons

Thank you for looking at the CSD on the above. The creator, User:4 skeletons, did remove the CSD in an attempt to fend of the deletion. I left advice on their talk page for them to use the hangon template. However as I failed to get any hits apart from Wikipedia on googling "4 skeletons" +band +"Albert de leon" I doubt that they could make a hang on case. What action do you suggest I take in future if someone removes a CSD template rather than adding hang on?--Peter cohen (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think their user page contains exactly the same stuff that was in the article. It wasnt big.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A7

you probably didn;t spot that school article cannot be deleted here via A7-- I'm referring to Chippewa Middle School, Shoreview, MN. I know it's totally unsatisfactory--and that we almost never keep middle school articles in any case; I have restored it, and prodded. It could possibly have been deleted as empty of encyclopedic content, but I consider it unfair to do this immediately to a new article where the article itself indicates it is under construction. I'll keep an eye on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, I knew that and simply missed it. Thanks for the reminder. - Philippe 00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott

Hi Philippe, would you please do me the favor of undeleting and userfying this page? I think I could fix whatever notability issues may have existed, as this firm is most certainly notable. Just FYI, Senator Rick Santorum works there. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, and at User:Eastlaw/Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott  :-) - Philippe 21:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a bit busy with school stuff right now, but I will work on the article and move it back to mainspace when I have time. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WCTI-TV on RPP

Come on...do they have be vandalizing the page ever second to get protection? It is obviously the same guy. The same "thank you bye" bull that required the page be protected previous, why not now? Why leave it open, so the user can jump IPs (again!) and continue their brand of vandalism? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protection is not something we do lightly - it's something we do only when standard vandal thwapping becomes untenable. In this case, there was a single instance. When it's proven that we can't keep up with it in standard practice, then we can consider page protection. The guideline says "Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option." In this case, we don't have a significant period of disruption, and we have not tried blocking. Closing pages from editing is a last resort - it's a strong statement against "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". - Philippe 00:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We have tried blocking, numerous times, it hasn't worked. The blocks are 31 hours or less (sometimes more, but it is rare) and the vandal comes back with a new IP (same catch phrase) and keeps at it. I never said to block the entire page from editing, just IP users....hence my request of "temporary protection". If we only block IP users (while we look for ways to get rid of our little vandal friend, which I am working on currently) it will allow the page to not be vandalized. Leaving it completely unblocked because nothing is happening "right now" and saying there is only a "single instance" is not only incorrect, but wrong. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't believe that the vandalism here rises to such a level that we can't handle it with reverts. The specific example given in page protection policy is Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Jesus, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism.. The level of vandalism here is nowhere NEAR that level. We can handle it with reverts, so we should. When it becomes too much to keep up with, we can consider page protection again, but we're not there yet. - Philippe 00:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

To compare a television station page to Jesus is something, I think, John Lennon did with The Beatles and it didn't work out so well for them. If you want to use a highly viewed, highly edited page like Jesus as a comparison for vandalism, then NOTHING would get protected. WCTI-TV gets about 50 to 100 edits a year, Jesus on the other hand gets about 50 to 100 edits a week (if not a day). So to compare the two (especially on vandalism stats) is like comparing apples and oranges, it doesn't work out well either. WCTI-TV has a continous stream of vandalism from an IP hopping vandal that blocks are not stopping and only protection will stop...if you want to let the vandal roam free, that is on you. I will work with another admin on range blocks and other remedies on stopping this vandal. Thanks for your "help". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A range block isn't going to be particularly effective here - you're looking at blocking a large part of the internet. I know it's frustrating, but you really really need to understand that the core of who we are is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia. That means we maintain pages in an unlocked state as long as we possibly can. I'll also point out that the example given is not intended to be exact, but does demonstrate the level to which the vandalism has to rise before we pre-emptively protect. I understand that you're frustrated - I think you're letting this guy get to you. Check out WP:DENY, please. - Philippe 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, aren't you full of fun and excitement tonight. According to you, range blocks won't work, page protection isn't needed, I should use a policy the guy could honestly give a damn less about to stop him. Right. Anyway, besides that great idea, what else ya got? Cause right now all admins can do is block his IPs and hope he uses the same one over and over so they can block it for a really long time, which he has been smart not to do. Right now, collateral damage is the least of my worries or cares. If we can stop a vandal from causing problems while (unfortunately) forcing a couple users from their IPs to username accounts, I am happy....because the vandal is gone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That actually makes me sad. The truth is, this guy is in inconsequential vandal. We have many who are much much worse problems to us. This guy just needs to be reverted until he gets bored and goes away - and he will. He's NOT someone that we have to use all the tools on. Doing that just feeds his ego. Ignore him - revert him when he shows up - i *promise* that will make a difference. But the more resources we throw at him, the more it inflates his sense of self-worth.

The one requirement to participate in this project is that you understand that we are collaborative. That means everyone gets the opportunity to edit, as much as we can. That means not semi-protecting or full protecting unless there's no other choice. This is a core tenant of the encyclopedia. It saddens me that you don't see that. - Philippe 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent)We did the ol' ignore route with User:BenH and User:Dingbat2007, they were still around and still vandalizing. It wasn't until we used the full force of every resource we had that that one of them gave up and the other seriously hampered. So yeah, I think we should use every resource we got, slam the hell outta him and if a couple IP users have to use accounts (by the way, I support Wikipedia being accounts only) to edit, so be it. It stops the vandal and we are better for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Picasa Web Albums Uploader

WP:CSD#A10 states that "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. Therefore, the article Picasa Web Albums Uploader does not fit under this category. At least consider a redirect. Thank you!-- ❝iBen❞ 02:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with a redirect at all. :) - Philippe 02:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Great!-- ❝iBen❞ 04:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Er

I'm concerned that this was not correct. You state that the article asserts notability. Please note that the "Canada's largest independent Think Tanks." is not the subject of this article, but rather the parent of the division. By this argument, I could write "Hipocrite is an employee of one of France's largest Banks." Would that be an assertion of notability? Hipocrite (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but if you were a division of one of France's largest banks, you'd be notable. :) There's a difference in granularity there, don't you think? :) - Philippe 19:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. "Division" is a meaningless term - and I dont think divisions inherit notability. For instance, the world's largest company by revenue is ExxonMobil. One division of ExxonMobil is the New Jersey Gas Station Accounting Division. Would an article called "ExxonMobil New Jersey Gas Station Accounting Division" be notable for being a division of the single most notable company in the world? Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Czuwaj Przemyśl

I request you undo your deletion. The club used to play in the top division and as such it is notable.  Dr. Loosmark  09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please link me to the page in question, or the redlink to that page? I delete a LOT of pages... - Philippe 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Czuwaj Przemyśl.  Dr. Loosmark  22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)]

There's no assertion of notability in that article. If you'd like, I'd be happy to restore it to your userspace so that you could expand on it... - Philippe 02:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice.  Dr. Loosmark  12:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, it's at User:Loosmark/Czuwaj Przemyśl - Philippe 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.  Dr. Loosmark  10:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Young BNP

You have seen fit to lock this article whithout, it seems, taking any notice of what has actually been happening on the talk page. To summarise, an editor insisted that the BNP is not fascist. A reference was supplied to demonstrate that it is. This he did not accept. Further references were supplied. These he did not accept. Throughout, he continually refused to accept the perfectly reliable references that myself and others were using to support our position and based his edits on, to paraphrase, "They're not fascist because they say they're not", without a shred of supporting evidence. He eventually gave up, after a prolonged wrangle that can only be described as disruptive. Another editor, has come along and removed 'fascism' again because George Orwell wrote about use of the word in 1948 and, oddly, because there are too many references! So, the editor who has almost single-handedly caused major disruption has given in, someone else comes along and makes his edit for him, and now you've locked it! You ought to have seen that there was consensus that the article should describe the BNP as 'fascist', based on impeccable citations. There was no need to lock it. Emeraude (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I spent a great deal of time reading the talk page. It seems clear to me that this is emotionally charged and that discussion in itself convinced me that we're not to a place where it can be considered consensus based to include that descriptor. I stand by my action. You may request that it be added using the {{editprotected}} template, though I rather suspect most other administrators would share my opinion on this. - Philippe 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User subpages

Thanks for all the deletes. It feels good to clean house! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure :) - Philippe 04:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New Battlefront Foundation

Hi Philippe. Could you take a look at New Battlefront Foundation and tell me whether it is likely to meet DB-SPAM or not? I have commented on the talk page as to why I think it's not notable. Thank you. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As it's written, I agree with you. It doesn't demonstrate multiple non-trivial mentions... you might work with the author to see if you can help bring it up to standards?- Philippe 05:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be good, but lacking any available sources, what could be done? (Serious question.) Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that they can point you toward some sources that aren't easily found on Google. :) - Philippe 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thank you. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! Let me know if I can help. - Philippe 05:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

hey jerkoff

u dont no a god damm thing about beer, dont revert my edits ok loser —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurobeerguide (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)