You made accusations, now is your chance to back them up, [[User:Philippe|Philippe]] could you set up the request for comment for us. I really appreciate it. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You made accusations, now is your chance to back them up, [[User:Philippe|Philippe]] could you set up the request for comment for us. I really appreciate it. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:[[User:Philippe|Philippe]] one other thing if it’s not to much trouble, on the request for page protection, who requested it?--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:[[User:Philippe|Philippe]] one other thing if it’s not to much trouble, on the request for page protection, who requested it?--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::I believe I did originally at least. It's pretty clear though that it needs protection as long as you are unwilling to genuinely discuss things and just engage in war games. Keep trying - it doesn't seem to be getting you very far! [[User:LiberalViews|LiberalViews]] 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:22, 3 November 2007
I will generally reply here to messages left here. If I think that you may perhaps be new to wiki, it's likely that I'll cross-post my reply to your userspace as well, since that will trigger the orange "messages" bar. I want to do as much as possible to see that you get the message. Please pardon the inconvenience of having it appear in two different places.
10:1310:13, 3 August 2024 List of Shaw Savill and Albion Line Ships (hist | edit) [1,420 bytes] TransControl(talk | contribs)(Created page to make a list of the large number of ships. Most of these ships are notable emigrant ships and they have been reported in reputable sources and newspapers. Some have had many articles and books written about them. However most do not have wikepedia page, this page will also facilitate creation of these articles should the ship be notable.)
Thank you for your action and for your comments. We were at the point of not knowing what to do next to try to get things under control. Hopefully this will help. Dbiel(Talk)04:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Philippe. I would like to request examination for a possible user block at this time (User: Coterminous). You can examine the NCCC talk page and see that we are at a complete impasse with a new user who insists on unilaterally re-writing wikipedia rules (examination of the archived talk page will shed further light on this) Please feel free to contact me directly with anything. --LoverOfArt17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the talk page, and come to the conclusion that the bounds of our policies on civility have been severly tested. I left a final warning about personal attacks on the user's talk page. I still believe it's possible to come to an understanding about this page, and encourage you to investigate Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures and consider mediation. If the boundaries of good taste or etiquette are crossed again, I will not hesitate to issue appropriate blocks. I hope that all parties involved will come to the table ready to discuss and come to an agreement. Thank you for keeping me notified about this process, and good luck! - Philippe | Talk19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to proceed, but did want to give you an update.
User:Coterminous has ignored all requests related to mediation including not even responding to my request for him to express his views on the subject, posted on the article talk page as well as on his own talk page. His edit summary response regarding working together on one very difficult section was:
As noted, he failed to log in prior to posting but did manually sign the post. Any suggestions on what to try next, if anything? Dbiel(Talk)04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, I don't know how much of the archived discussion you had a chance to review, to see what led to my post. You may not feel you need to, but had I posted the remarks and editorial tactics of LoverOfArt, he would be under consideration for blockage from Wikipedia, not me.Coterminous12:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this issue:
"What's going on?
Coterminous is a new Wikipedia user and doesn't fully understand what is appropriate for this site. .... LoverofArt has posted false and misleading and defamatory information about NCCC at the Wikipedia site and resorted to repeated vitriolic personal attacks on Coterminous which finally prompted an angry response."
The above statement is not a wild accusation from a fool. I once helped copyedit for publication a book by Senator Moynihan of New York. LoverofArt shows blatant disregard either for editorial honesty or accuracy, with the net result being grossly negative and inaccurate statements about NCCC posted at the Wikipedia NCCC site by LoverofArt. His ugly rants against me, combined with the false and misleading information he has posted, combined into a toxic brew. Please tell him and his cohorts to back off the "chastising" of me, as Che Nuevera puts it, and focus on content.Coterminous13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Regrets The Errors
From June to September of 2007, several false and misleading critical statements appeared at the National Civilian Community Corps (also known as AmeriCorps NCCC) page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civilian_Community_Corps), in violation of Wikipedia standards. This is the false text as it appeared:
National Civilian Community Corps
"...Criticisms
The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle".[4] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud"[5], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years." Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it "a fraud".
^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188385,00.html ^ http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm"
Wikipedia relies on its readers and volunteer contributors to avoid or challenge and correct misleading or false information.
The following has been called to our attention:
1. The statement that read "...Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud," cited as its source an article at this address by Bovard: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm Nowhere in that article does Bovard make that statement. No mention of "AmeriCorps NCCC" nor of the "National Civilian Community Corps" appears in that article, nor is AmeriCorps NCCC called a 'waste and fraud." We regret the error.
2. The same sentence went on to state the following: "...Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud", in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain ..."
Upon investigation, this statement turns out to be untrue. Bovard's book (published in hardcover by St. Martin's press) does not contain a chapter of criticisms of AmeriCorps NCCC in the book "Feeling Your Pain. In fact, neither "AmeriCorps NCCC" nor the "National Civilian Community Corps are mentioned at all in the text of that book nor in the book index. (The chapter in question concerns the umbrella program, AmeriCorps, but does not mention the program known as "AmeriCorps NCCC'" or the "National Civilian Community Corps".
(The only mention to NCCC is in the footnotes, referring to a speech by then-president Clinton, praising, not criticizing, the NCCC.)
In sum, the book "Feeling Your Pain" does not dedicate "an entire chapter of criticisms" of AmeriCorps NCCC, contrary to the information posted at the Wikipedia website. We regret the error.
3. Also untrue was the sentence "Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it [i.e., AmeriCorps NCCC] "a fraud". This sentence was misleading and false. It was placed at the National Civilian Community Corps page and referred to the antecedent in the previous sentence, the AmeriCorps NCCC.
The claim relied on the article by Bovard at http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm. No mention of either the "National Civilian Community Corps" nor of "AmeriCorps NCCC" appears in that article. No evidence has been put forward to support the statement that Mr. Sweet ever labeled AmeriCorps NCCC a "fraud." We regret the error.
Wikipedia deeply regrets that this misleading text appeared at our National Civilian Community Corps website and that it persisted for as long as it did.
The editor responsible for its appearance and continued re-emergence will no longer have access to the National Civilian Community Corps Wikipedia entry.
Signed: _____
[Philippe - Calls to move forward on the National Civilian Community Corps page, to be a team player, etc., would be better received if Wikipedia posted a note something like the above at the NCCC site - not to mention, it might restore Wikipedia's credibility on the subject. I don't know if there is a snowball's chance of that happening, but at least this gives you some information to process so you can evaluate the current situation. Given the nature of the NCCC - a substantial and serious component of U.S. disaster relief and mitigation capacity - and its recent near-demise following misleading claims like those posted at Wikipedia, the statement above is not written as amusement.]Coterminous16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This most recent 'fantasy oriented' post is emblematic of a large part of the reason why I requested this user be blocked. In addition to generally incorrect and inappropriate edits to the NCCC article all around, it's pretty apparent that we are dealing with a fairly severe personality disorder. You can start from square one with all of the patience and good faith that many of us have already extended and expended, but we've tried that (see discussion log) and it's utterly pointless. I'll renew my call for a permanent user and IP range block. --LoverOfArt17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coterminous, you're right about one thing: there's not a snowball's chance in hell of anything like that being published by this encyclopedia, and certainly not under my signature. Administrators are not empowered to make statements such as you suggest, and I assure you that they are out of the norm for the project. I encourage you, for the final time, to take advantage of the dispute resolution procedures, beginning with mediation. If you do not accept mediation, other steps will have to be taken. - Philippe | Talk19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something was just called to my attention that I missed in my skimming of this conversation. LoverOfArt, your description of someone as a "borderline personality disorder" is inappropriate and will not be tolerated. I will not allow personal attacks (or a professional judgment that you may or may not be professionally qualified to give, but it would be unethical to give under any circumstances) in an attempt to warn people away from personal attacks! - Philippe | Talk16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugly Personal Attacks - You Approve??
Good Morning, Philippe. The post above yours, by LoverofArt, is typical of his posts in my direction. An ugly personal attack, by a person who has in essence defamed a widely respected organization -- the National Civilian Community Corps -- by posting false and misleading information at the Wikipedia website.
If your / Wikipedia's best idea is that what should happen next is that I enter into a prolonged dialogue with that person, hoping to reason with him/her, while he/she continues to exert control over content and issue ugly diatribes, then your processes leave a great deal to be desired. A responsible adult -- a real Editor -- should have interceded long ago. He/she and the others working over the NCCC text at this time seem to feel that any statement introduced by the phrase "According to ___," does not belong at Wikipedia. As I read it, there was objection at one of your pages to placing references at the end of that phrase rather than at the end of the quotation. Why an encyclopedia would have as a policy including bald claims (as if fact) without reference to the source in its text eludes me. It would give the impression that the encyclopedia had evaluated the statement, which is obviously not the case.
I appreciate Wikipedia's effort to provide freely accessible information to the public. I am not impressed, however, by the response to gross errors made at the Wikipedia site. Your crew is attacking the messenger at least in part because it is the message that it does not like.
A pretty sorry performance, which you seem to be joining by failing to address the issues I raise or the attacks on me.
Pull LoverofArt out of this situation and I will join in a dispute resolution process regarding editing the NCCC site. I refuse to have further dealings with him/her.Coterminous11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, would it be possible to get some sort of a finite time frame on when we can proceed with this? A lot of effort and calls for cooperation have already been tried with this person (including those I've made myself), resulting in a necessary full page protection. It's apparent this user is utterly clueless about how Wikipedia works (as evidenced by their previous claims that they are not a "paid editor" of Wikipedia, or this most recent delusion of their own make-believe "formal Wikipedia statement") yet has shown a near complete disdain for the rules that govern the article and a total unwillingness as a new user to learn them and participate accordingly. There are serious WP:POV, WP:Notability and self promotion issues inserted by this user that presently plague the article. As much effort as we have all expended in trying to get him/her to understand the site a bit better, replies like the one above are what we get in return. I know we have full page protection for another few days. Do you think it would be possible to resolve this with a conclusion by that time? I hope that Coterminous completely changes into a new person and abandons his/her current method of operation, however, I'd wager a years pay against that happening and its very frustrating to see so much pointless 'effort' going into furthering a good faith, constructive dialog that has clearly shown that it won't have any positive result. --LoverOfArt20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LoverofArt, my patience has very nearly expired. Coterminous, I will not ask good faith editors to retire from discussions because you simply disagree with them. Your actions are bordering on disruptive, and I'm going to ask you to calm down and edit in good faith at this point, or you will be blocked from editing for disruption. - Philippe | Talk14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is not intended as disruptive - it is simply to show you what has gone on. This is a quote about me by LoverofArt, from Dbiel's page, where I posted it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbiel
"Borderline Lunacy
I have never, ever in my history on Wikipedia, seen a more incohearant, jumbled, senseless, excessively long-winded, foaming-at-the-mouth sort of reply as I'm seeing here with this person (Coterminous). This individuals responses in the discussion section are nearly impossible to comprehend and so schizophrenic in their continuity that I seriously doubt anyone else is able to decipher their meaning as well. ... -LoverOfArt 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"
Would you feel comfortable being pressed into a joint editing venture with someone who expressed themselves to you in this fashion?Coterminous21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That begs the question. You and your colleagues consistently argue that the only way forward is in dialogue or mediation with LoverofArt, a "good faith" editor, you say. Your words: "I will not ask good faith editors to retire from discussions because you simply disagree with them." Neither his attacks on me nor his editing technique show much "good faith."
So, yes, you seem to be in effect pressing a joint venture - intimating that either I join with LoverofArt in working on this project or else depart or be blocked from the site.
For all of the speculation about my supposed detriments, I have nonetheless managed to write for and be published by the Investigative Reporters and Editors Journal - more than once - a journal that is published by the respected School of Journalism at the University of Missouri in Columbia.
My work was checked by the Executive Editor and staff -- some of the most competent fact checkers in the entire business.
No organization likes critics, and the tendency to circle the wagons and define outsiders as illegitimate is predictable, understandable.
(reverted well intentioned revert as unfortunately this represents the problem that needs to be dealt with, and as this is Philippe's page, he should have the option of handling it he chooses rather than reverting it for him)
You (and your colleagues) consistently argue that the only way forward is in dialogue or mediation with LoverofArt, a "good faith" editor, so you say. (In your words: "I will not ask good faith editors to retire from discussions because you simply disagree with them.") You are mistaken: Neither LoverofArt's vicious attacks on me nor his malicious editing show "good faith."
For all of the speculation about my supposed detriments, I have nonetheless managed to write for and be published by the Investigative Reporters and Editors Journal - more than once - a journal that is published by the respected School of Journalism at the University of Missouri in Columbia.
My detailed reporting was checked personally by the IRE Executive Editor (and staff) -- some of the most competent professionals in the entire business. They not only welcomed lengthy documentation of work submitted, they required it. At this site, detailed information simply invites scorn and diatribes. My contempt for the combination of editorial garbage and under-the-belt attacks spewing from LoverofArt is absolute. He/she is a hack and a punk - I hope some day he/she gets what is coming to him/her, with interest. A fine representative of Wikipedia. Block away if you want, I won't be missing a thing, except the dirty feeling that comes from reading the crap emanating from that paragon of Good Faith, LoverofArt.Coterminous04:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to barge into someone Else's talk page, but I feel that I must. Coterminous, you MUST stop the personal attacks, if you wish, ignore the term "good faith editor" when applied to LoverOfArt; that is not the issue and besides your are taking the term out of its proper context. The issue is ANY editor who is working without disrupting Wikipedia will be allowed to edit as they choose regardless if the content is being disputed. Note, there are limits, such as profanity. Content disputes are handled on the article talk page, but WITHOUT personal attacks. It is OK to attack the content, not the editor. Please note that an editor can be grossly wrong in his/her content and still be acting in good faith. "Gross errors" have nothing to do with "good faith editing". Gross errors will NOT be permitted to remain in Wikipedia. They are dealt with in the normal editorial process, but not by attacking the editor who inserted them. So far you are the one who has refused to participate in the editorial process. You input would be useful and accepted, but ONLY if it comes WITHOUT personal attacks. Dbiel(Talk)12:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think we're done here. Good reply, Dbiel, but my patience has been exhausted. Conterminous, you crossed the line with the line about "crap emanating from that paragon of Good Faith", which is a blatant violation of our civility policies. Take the next 48 hours to consider those policies. Once that time is over, your input is welcome, but insults are not. - Philippe | Talk14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Philippe,
Apologies for not having meaningful content in the wike article we are putting together for Murchison Middle School in Austin, Tx. We are constructing this page incrementally...
We are going to re-edit and add additional information - should we pass that by you before we add it to the wiki?
Lenny
Hi Lenny - no problem at all. What I'd suggest is that you create it in a sandbox page (for instance, if you click on the red link next to this, it will create a sandbox page in your user space ----> User:Lblumber/Sandbox <----- and once you're ready, leave me a note and I'll happily review it and make any suggestions, or move it out into the encyclopedia for you. - Philippe | Talk01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One question - I'd like to include an image of the middle school that's on the PTA website. We can get one of the PTA officials to email you with approval. How do y'all (remember, this is Texas...) want a release for this picture documented or phrased?
Thanks again - Lenny
Phillipe,
I need to pester you again - is there a way you could restore the page you deleted and/or email it to me?
As they say at the explosives factory - Dynamite!... Many Thanks for restoring the page. We'll get busy on reading the docs, updating the page and then ping you when we're at a stopping point.
On a separate thread - I've been turning into a Wiki evangelist lately. I belong to a local S&R dive team and I maintain a wiki on the team at http://www.lennyblumberg.com/TCEU. I would be very grateful if you could spend a minute or so looking it over and offering some quick suggestions for getting it up to Wiki standards. Since it's a private wiki, it's kinda loosey-goosey as far as presentation and format. I noticed that the Anderson High School has a particular template that's used for schools - are you aware of any such template for volunteer organizations such as these?
I was under the impression that 'huge names for the sake of it' were a no-no.
I figure I report it and let someone with a badge decide: if I'm right, I'm right, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, unless they're obviously a vandal. Just following percieved procedure. HalfShadow03:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and no harm done (and by the way, someone else blocked him... I disagree, but hey, that's life). Under WP:U, we have issues with:
Confusing usernames make it unduly difficult to identify users by their username.
Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the user.
Disruptive usernames disrupt or misuse Wikipedia, or imply an intent to do so.
Promotional usernames attempt to promote a group or company on Wikipedia.
Offensive usernames are likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
Excessively long names go under "Confusing", but the trend right now is toward giving the user the benefit of the doubt and asking them to change rather than blocking, unless it's blatantly offensive. - Philippe | Talk04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The LGBT studies project has been rather quiet of late. Though we've added over 180 new members in the last year, only a small percentage are active participants. If you haven't visited our project or talk page in a while, please stop by for a look. Also, if you happen to bump into another editor who you feel might enjoy working with us, please extend an invitation. There's lot's do do, and the active members would sincerely appreciate some help.
Our Peer review project is struggling at the present, with only a few people reviewing the articles. While it is certainly possible to submit articles for a general peer review, a review by members of the LGBT community can be of additional value for LGBT specific writing. There are several articles currently up for review on a wide range of topics. At the very least, reading the articles will undoubtedly broaden your intellectual horizons :-)
At the moment, David Le Brocq, Malmö Devilants and Trajectory Hermeneutics are up for deletion review. Please take a look at them and make your voice heard at the deletion review. Articles nominated for deletion also present a challenge for improvement. See what you can do, and watchlist our deletion review page.
The Pederasty articles continue to be a point of controversy both within and outside of our community. Various editors have suggested that to include them as LGBT Project related somehow taints the project and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Other editors have stated that the articles, and especially the Pederasty article, are part of the core of LGBT studies. Well meaning editors continue to remove our tags from the articles themselves as well as the talk pages. If you have time, please read the articles and watchlist them to protect them from vandalism and well meaning but counterproductive edits.
The list of LGBT people has survived its 4th nomination for deletion. Please watchlist this list to protect it from vandalism and unsourced additions. There are many in Wikipedia who would like to see this Featured status list removed from the project. It is up to us to keep it to such a high caliber that it never is removed.
Our project member David Shankbone is now working as a journalist for Wikinews, as well as continuing to improve our project and Wikipedia as a whole with his photographs. A sincere thank you goes out to him for all of his hard work. Wikipedia would not shine nearly as brightly without your contributions, David.
Happy Halloween, everybody! Be happy and celebrate!
The surviving life partner of prominent LGBT rights activist Barbara Gittings recently called one of our editors and, among other things, complimented us on what a great job our project is doing on Wikipedia. Thanks to everyone who contributes to this project, either through their article edits or support for other project members. We really are making an difference here!
Member assistance
Some of our project members have been having difficulties related to editing on the encyclopedia. If you are feeling frustrated or distressed by your editing experience, please don't keep it to yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and we are all here to help one another. Drop a line on our talkpage or on another editor's page, and other members of the LGBT project will happily give you the support you want and need.
Lastly, Halloween is just around the corner. More than most holidays, Halloween is a holiday embraced by and tailor made to our community (though God only knows why we are invisible in the Halloween article here. Perhaps somebody would like to rectify that editing oversight). Have fun, everybody, and remember to both trick and treat!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
Thank you.
I am not sure how often you check this, but thank you for warning me. I understand. I had just been trying to revert edits which also had death threats in them, but thank you for warning me, I will pay more attention next time. (NOTE: This message is not sarcastic.) JpGrB15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, may I ask one really quick favor? On the Only Built 4 Cuban Linx II page, there are many fake tracks at the bottom (one of which is the "death threat" mentioned above), while also listing websites that have nothing to do with the page. Is it possible to have these taken out of here? Thank you. JpGrB15:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although generally admins are loathe to make changes to a page which is fully protected, in this case there is substantial obvious vandalism, including the section you pointed out, which I have now removed from the page. In the future, it's probably best not to get into an edit war over things like this - it tends to just escalate the situation. Instead, post about it at the administrators' incident board and someone will take a look at it for you. - Philippe | Talk16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Range blocks scare me. I haven't, because I'm not sure I'd do it right and the possibility for collateral damage is so huge. If there's someone smarter than I that wants to try it out, I'm sure I'd refer to said person as cuddly and adorable. - Philippe | Talk19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heya
I am trying to figure out where the template that shows the specific coloration changes to the Heroes (TV series) character (and everything else) template, which is using reverse-type text coloring in the infobox headers to distinguish itself. With other templates, I can usually find the material and fix it, but for some reason, it seems missing. Where do I find it? I've found the following self-described Heroes templates:
I saw your comment on Mexican-American War edit summary. I've kept this pretty low-key just in case I've accused the wrong user, but I've got a checkuser process underway as well. BusterD20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Phillipe: You are a jerk and a loser. Why couldn't you wait just a week before deleting the article Gabriel Luciano? I asked you to wait just a week, but no, you had to be a moron and delete it a freaking one a.m.? You need to get a life and get some friends.
Dear Gilbert: You know, that's the kindest thing you've ever said to me. For the sake of discussion, though, I deleted the article because it failed to assert notability according to our policies. I mean, it REALLY failed. LOTS. Now, had you asked politely, I probably would have restored the article into your userspace to give you the opportunity to work on it someplace where it was safe. In fact, I'd probably STILL do that if you asked. Cuz that's the type of guy I am. - Philippe | Talk22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - the page, as I deleted it, was a substantial copy of a website [1], including ranks, exact market numbers, schedules, etc. It would probably not be eligible for a restore. However, I'd be happy to email the text of it to you (I hesitate to put it back on wiki, since my stand is that it's a copyvio) if you'd like to email me to request a copy at philippe.wiki@gmail.com. At that point, if you'd like to rewrite it in such a way that it's no longer a copyvio, I certainly wouldn't object to the page reappearing. Hope that's at least some help to you. - Philippe | Talk00:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block
Sir, I would like to just thank you for exercising extra caution in the blocking my IP the other day when you perceived that I was making too many non-constructive edits. When it comes to a primary information source for millions of humans worldwide, you can't be too safe, eh? I noticed that after you had done so, another Admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me blocked my user talk page for a period of 6 weeks. (Sheesh!). Is that normal? Seems a bit extreme regardless of the offence. I noticed that said editor is taking a wikibreak and attributed the extreme reaction to some feelings of stress in his life. My immediate reaction was to extend my sincerest sympathy and try to cheer him up with warm thoughts, however upon finding that this editor's talk page was somehow protected, I realized that this would not be possible. Would you be so kind as to pass my sentiments along. You'll find that now as being unblocked, I have refrained from further editing so as to not cause more stress to yourself or other editors who might be offended by my view of things. The subjectivity of reality seems to be a concept that is too radical for this audience. Thanks again, I hope things are going well for yourself. You might try questioning your norms sometime. It is an extremely liberating experience. 72.225.36.15801:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I couldn't agree with you more. Questioning your norms is a great experience for everyone to go through. However, I'm not sure I'll ever think that adding an image of horse semen is really appropriate for an article about mayonaisse. I do appreciate your forbearance now, though. - Philippe | Talk02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Block :)
Philipe, I have made two fairly cogent arguments (IMO) supporting the removal of the ejaculation video in Ejaculate. You blocked me very briefly because I was participating in WP:VAN blanking repeatedly without discussion. Makes sense, as I pointed out at the bottom of Talk:Ejaculation here [2]. However, how much discussion is required before someone can engage safely in an edit war? That is of course not my goal in the least, but the video is destructive to wikipedia, and if wikipedia is going to stand against the inevitable Citizendium or the eventually even tougher competition New World Encyclopedia, then I would argue that such things should be avoided.
I established two reasons for this. 1st, I believe that the video is unattributed data, in that there is no authoritative citation present to indicate whether or not it is indicative of a real, normal, nor even common ejaculation. A donated video from the Kinsey Institute or similar would be more appropriate. 2nd, and this point is slowly becoming my primary point though it started off only distantly being of interest to me, the appropriateness of this video is not well argued. The arguments for it are very weak, and I believe the video is destructive in that it will lend further to the growing dismisal of wikipedia as a source of serious information. My analogy (crassly stated, I'm sorry) is that the GI_Tract and Defecate pages would not bennefit from a video of me defecating.Tgm102416:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make good arguments. However, I diverge from you when you start to think it's okay to remove without discussion, or to engage in an edit war. The thing that makes us a good encyclopedia - beyond the obvious, the writing - is that we are a people of dialogue. Rather than engage in blind reverts, it's better to go through the dispute resolution steps that are available to you in an attempt to build consensus. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if all contributors decided "okay, we've talked about it enough, now I'm just going to revert to my favorite revision". So, while I personally agree with your base premise, I disagree with your tactics. - Philippe | Talk18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blind reverts I've done are as you saw them, but otherwise you completely misunderstood me, but as I re-read my initial paragraph I can see how someone would take it the way you did, so I apologize. I'll be clear. I am not advocating nor am interested in an edit-war. Nor am I asking for wikipedian guidelines regarding it per se as if it were a valid technique. I was asking where the line was drawn for meeting discussion requirements. Your chaos supposition "okay, we've talked about it enough..." is actually a problem: what do you do both sides are at a deadlock? Look at the arguments in Talk:Ejaculation carefully. I believe the problem and motivations are as I described.Tgm102400:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need help
The talk page on Gynecomastia has become a cess pool of unimportant topics and talk, take a look at it and you will see what i mean. Could you please delete for me.--Iceglass00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are not talking about how to improve the article anymore, just their own Gynecomastia that is why i think it should be deleted so we can start a new dicussion that is more apporite.--Iceglass13:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to try to redirect the conversation there, but I'm not sure there's precedent for deleting a whole talk page that is, at least tangentially, related to the topic at hand. - Philippe | Talk18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if I could impose on you to take a few minutes and review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases.
I seem to be of the minority point of view and maybe you could either add support to keeping the list or help me see where I might be totally off base in my thinking. Thank you in advance.
And to add my voice to the clamoring throng seeking your assistance, I have this itch in the middle of my back that i can't reach. Could you get it for me? :P - Arcayne(cast a spell)03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk: Frida Kahlo, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. - Philippe | Talk22:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, whom I attacked causing you to block me, please, because I have no idea? At least you should have mentioned just one person, please! -70.18.5.21911:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advice?
I recently made edits to Jonestown removing somethings that I explained in the talk page of said article. I do have some history of being called a vandal in my talk page. This is one of my first "major" contributions since the dispute of my vandalism. Since I removed somethings out of said article, I'm a little worried that they may accuse me of vandalism. I explained my reasoning behind my actions in the article's discussion page. I just want to make sure and have someone double check before other users get to it. All I want to know is if my edit was good or not. If the edit was not helpful or wrong let me know my faults for future reference. I'm still new to editing and would appreciate this guidance. I only ask because I am unsure myself on my edit. By the way I also edited it under my IP address before I logged in. Riffsofcobain18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I agree with your edits, and appreciate that you told people in your edit summary to check the talk page. About the only thing I'd point out is that you did it as an IP and answered under your account name, but that's just a little picky thing and anyone who looks at the article history will figure it out quickly. I think you did everything correctly there. Good job! - Philippe | Talk20:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:AGNPH
Thanks again. I hope you'll be around tomorrow when the block expires and he does it again. I am assuming the next block will be longer (a lot longer). But hopefully you'll be around whenver he does it again since you know about the situation already. - Rjd006001:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that I will be here, but if I'm not, feel free to email me at philippe.wiki@gmail.com. I can hop on in a flash and I'm ALWAYS checking my email. - Philippe | Talk02:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous! I'm glad the AFD was delete, hopefully that'll cut this guy off, but I suspect he'll find another title to start it under and we'll be cleaning that up off and on for a while. - Philippe | Talk14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see...I wonder which account he used. I checked the blocking admin's conrib's to try and find out but I didn't see it. - Rjd006015:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably correct. Since there seems to be some national funding involved, there probably are some RS out there (although I couldn't turn up any), so I'm not going to AfD it. I've done by best to fix the article, and hopefully someone will turn up the refs at some point. Cheers, --Bfigura(talk)05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: I've tried speedying that before, but the tag was removed by an IP (the contrib history suggests the IP might not be a sock, based on a different level of interests). Hopefully this one will go through. Best, --Bfigura(talk)16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I elected to just handle that one the "old-fashioned way" and delete it myself. On further reflection, I don't need more input, it's clearly an advert. :-) - Philippe | Talk16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NCCC
I hope you agree that LoverOfArt's statements that "we are dealing with a fairly severe personality disorder" is also clearly inappropriate, particularly since I told him more than once that he was coming awfully close to personal attacks. I recognize that it is surely not your intention to condone such behavior, but I feel it's very important to impress upon LoverOfArt that there are no exceptions to WP:NPA.
I'm overturning your block on CoyoteBill - the account appears to be here only for vandalism and I have blocked it indefinably. If you feel I am in error, please re-block for whatever time you think is appropriate and I won't revert you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Could you please assist me with understanding your recent decisions at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? You say the User:HCSO is not used solely for promotion but all this user has done is create a user page which is a carbon copy of the website of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. This user has done nothing but self-promotion. Secondly, you say that User:ActivelyOUT has only made one edit which it self reverted. It reverted an advert after I flagged it as such. But surely the number of edits is irrelevant. I reported it to usernames requiring administrator attention; not to vandals requiring user attention. Therefore the number of posts is irrelevant. This username is the name of a website and the only post has been to advertise that website. The username is therefore in breach of WP rules for usernames. I'm new here, so if I've got this wrong I'm happy to learn, but I would appreciate some clarification for your decision. Many Thanks. B1atv22:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't deal with HCSO - that was Neil. :-) I didn't do anything about ActivelyOUT, because - contrary to what you expressed - the number of edits is NOT irrelevant. The trend right now is to not block a name until it's proven to be damaging the encyclopedia in some way. In this case, the name was in error, realized the error (with your help), and then self-reverted it. I honestly don't believe we'll have any other problems with them and the result was that we didn't have to block them. Blocks can be tremendously discouraging to a new user - I prefer to not to do them for folks in good faith, particularly if they are called on their error and self-revert. However, I *did* add the name to my list of folks to check on occasionally, and if I see issues, I'll take action then. I hope this makes sense - feel free to ask me if you have any other questions. - Philippe | Talk22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. It makes a lot of sense. I hope you didn't mind me asking. I simply wanted to understand the decisions to ensure I didn't make future reports un-necessarily. You've helped with that, and I can understand that "genuine mistakes" shouldn't be lumped with "deliberate spammers". Thanks again. B1atv22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the one that pissed me off too. I just noticed that I didn't actually indef block him, though, which is what I intended to do. I got distracted by the telephone. I'm off to fix that now. - Philippe | Talk23:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see. Cheers. I'm sure if he returns and does the exact same thing (vandalising the same articles, attacking the same editors(there's about three/four)), I'll be the first to report him. AngelOfSadness talk 23:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get your feedback on this?
I am kinda concerned that the connecting of the characters' abilities from Heroes to the list of comic book superpowers is OR by synthesis. I posted my concern here. What are your thoughts on the subject? - Arcayne(cast a spell)03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm WAY out of my comfort area here - I don't know the subject matter at all. But, I would say that based on what I see, while I appreciate your concern, I think we're probably safe. If you went out and polled the superheros as to what their powers were, I'd say that's OR. But assuming you're taking it from reliable sources, I think we're in the clear. - Philippe | Talk03:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking maybe it could be speedied? Technically it falls under the 'talk' template:'It is a talk page of a page which has been deleted...' HalfShadow03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not really in the habit of deleting user talk pages. For one thing, they serve as a bit of history - although admins can see deleted revisions, a lot of our really splendid vandalfighters can't, and I hate to block that sort of history from them. I can see where it'd be a good idea, though - for right now, I'd prefer to leave it though. - Philippe | Talk03:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good catch. It wasn't Shia - it looks like User:Enzuru started building his/her user page there and then realized it was wrong. It bears a resemblance to the current one. I just deleted it from User:Shia since I'm not sure it's really theirs. If I'm wrong, I'm sure they'll let me know. Good catch on your part! :-) - Philippe | Talk04:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for helping out. Becuase I (probably) suffered the most from that IP address, I,Goodshoped35110s, give you all the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! (yay.) :) --Goodshoped35110s04:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.
The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you blocked this IP address in the past for vandalism. Since then, there have been numerous warnings. Today, the user/IP went through many biography articles and changeed the birthdates. Is there anything you can do, or can you point me in the right direction to have this dealt with? Thanks. GaryColemanFan23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo. The smoke and red flags were popping up everywhere. I found him attacking oxymoron83, tried to revert the edit and put a warning on their page but I saw that this guy was supposedly an admin, with 40'000 edits to wikipedia and only had an edit history of thirteen. Anyway, thank you for blocking him :D AngelOfSadness talk 17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another quick question, should his userpage itself be replaced with an indef block template or should it be deleted as he attempted to impersonate an admin with it? AngelOfSadness talk 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you know, that's a REALLY good point. I think my preference is to revert it back to a "pre-impersonation" version, if there is one. If not, I'll just delete it. - Philippe | Talk18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Icairns, the editor whose userpage was copied by the vandal, has blanked it. There are two other revisions of the page which it can be reverted back to. Revision one says "I am 1337" and revision two is blank. Maybe it might be best left blank, hopefully no-one will revert it. AngelOfSadness talk 19:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think Icairns should get to decide the fate of the page, and if he's comfortable blanking it, I support that totally. - Philippe | Talk22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just seemed to be overlooked. I agree with your comment though, there have been quite a few positive edits from IP's but too much vandalism. - Rjd006022:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted our article on Oct. 5 because of blatant advertising. I was wondering if we could do anything to alter the article to make it not appear that way. If you look on our talk page, the article was deleted before for similar reasons which we cleared up with another admin. Please let us know what we can do.
A while back you deleted List of United States radio markets, claiming it as "blatant copyright infringement". Please see the deletion discussion about a similar list, List of television stations in North America by media market, where consensus decided that such a list does not infringe on copyright, because it is reporting facts about broadcast markets which are common knowledge in the industry and are widely available to the public. Facts cannot be copyrighted, only the specific expression of those facts, and only when that expression involves a modicum of creativity. See Feist v. Rural. In light of this, would you be willing to restore this page? DHowell23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. If you continue to have problems with that, send me an email and I'll see what we can do to get it fixed permanently. - Philippe | Talk03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute........WHAT HAPPENED??!! You should do this on Wikinews, but, seriously, I offer my condolences to you and your five friends on that subject. -Goodshop01:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. The full story is at [3]. All three kids were in my partner's choir, their mother was a friend, and the pilot was our priest. Rough day in Tulsa. - Philippe | Talk02:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Thank you for your help in my RfA. It hammered home a few things I need to keep in mind while admining and passed with a final tally of 40/0/4; two people forgot to vote in time, leaving me short of that exquisite number :-(, but I'll just have to fudge the next vote about me. Adminship feels slightly august but not particularily exalted, so I shall endeavour to consider it a toolkit and make sincere efforts to know what I'm doing before using it. If you later on have something to say or want to ask for --
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable.♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
purpose of article protection
I nominated the Cuban sandwich article for a lock but it was declined because the issue was deemed a "content dispute". The thing is, the anonymous user with whom I (and others, btw) have a "dispute" is replacing cited facts with uncited misinformation.
Say a user from New York was repeatedly editing the Boston Red Sox article to state that Yankees won this year's World Series, for example. Would that be a "content dispute", or a clear case of vandalism? This argument is much the same. There is no evidence to support the anonymous user's edits of entry, yet he/she keeps repeating reintroducing the same blatantly false (and reference-free) story about a Miami origin.
If page protection for the article is not a viable option, what course of action would you suggest if this continues?
BTW, it may seem silly to argue over a sandwich, but the Cuban/Tampa origin of this lunch staple is universally known and celebrated in the area. In fact, this dispute was (presumably) the inspiration for a newspaper column in the Tampa Tribune. Zeng8r03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection is generally reserved for wide scale article vandalism, or vandalism involving multiple editors. When there are disputes between single editors, I usually recommend dispute resolution or - in the case of true vandalism - WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Administrators generally try to stay out of content disputes and encourage users to settle those in other methods. I hope that gives you an understanding of my thinking in this case. In a nutshell, I rarely will protect the page when there's vandalism/disruption by a single editor. If we're talking about GROUPS of editors, I'm more likely to protect. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask - I truly want you to understand my reasoning - nothing worse than a vague description! - Philippe | Talk04:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, there is only one person making the argument (and edits) which supports that the sandwich is from Tampa. He's making the edits under his screen name, and an anonymous IP, there's clearly no consensus on the issue here on Wikipedia. It's a poor analogy to compare a televised winner of a baseball game, and the creator of a particular food dish, ESPECIALLY food and drink origins. The sandwich is much like the margarita, plenty of references from various sources claiming different origins. End of the day, there are conflicting reports of the origin, and its not unreasonable to ask someone to include a mention of this when such references do exist. 68.155.121.705:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous person: Facts are facts. You provide no sources for your edits. The item you keep changing has MULTIPLE good, clear, unambiguous sources, including newspaper articles from Tampa, St. Pete, AND Miami plus two published books. The only source I've found (I've looked) for your Miami assertion are wikipedia mirror sites that cached a version of the Cuban sandwich page before incorrect information could be removed. This is not a disputable issue - the knowledgeable sources are unanimous in agreement.
At best, you are removing cited material in favor of incorrect original research, which violates several wikipedia policies. At worst, you are just trying to be a pain in the nether regions, which violates several different wikipedia policies. Why don't you go to the Po-Boy or the Philly Cheesesteak page, remove all references to New Orleans and Philadelphia, and claim they're from Miami. If you're going to try to steal other city's epicurean legacies, might as well go for the gusto...
As for "IP edits": 1) This dispute was in the Tampa Tribune. Though wikipedia was not directly mentioned, a few people apparantly figured it out because the article had already been fixed by others when I got to it. 2) Why don't you register?
Hi Philippe, I see you protected the above article. Could I draw your attension to this determination from the arbitration. In particular to this statement "When possible, mentors should favor article bans over page protection." Dispite the ongoing carry on, there was some productive work also as seen here. While I can understand you reason for protecting the article, I also find it discouraging. Thanks--Domer4814:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I am familiar with the arbitration but wish to point out that I am not, as defined in that same arbitration, a mentor. I am an administrator, responding to a request for page protection because of actions that are happening outside of consensus, that is, while consensus is still being determined. I am not going to suggest an article ban in this case. I stand by my decision to protect, but thank you for your comment. It truly is appreciated. The page protection will last only 24 hours, which should give consensus time to formulate. Surely you can use the time on the talk page to discuss future changes? Protection and further work are not mutually exclusive. - Philippe | Talk16:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although in case you do want to consider article-based bans, may I recommend a close examination of Domer48's conduct in the article Philippe? He is specifically breaching the arbitration's rulings in a number of ways, most particularly their finding of fact that he is a disruptive editor who posts tendentious and misleading edit summaries. Looking back at the history of it, he appears to run campaigns against editors with whom he disagrees and in this case is (absurdly) trying to take the moral high ground with you in what is cleary a profound disinterest in genuine discussion and consensus-building in the article. LiberalViews16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to provide the duff’s to substantiate you accusations, failing that, I would very much appreciate Philippe opening a request for comment on LiberalViews for making scurrilous accusations against me, the reason I’m asking Philippe is because I have never asked for one before, and lack the ability to do so.--Domer4819:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need as I was just confirming your request for article-level bans and quite rightly suggesting you be first for such consideration. LiberalViews19:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I did originally at least. It's pretty clear though that it needs protection as long as you are unwilling to genuinely discuss things and just engage in war games. Keep trying - it doesn't seem to be getting you very far! LiberalViews21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about some pop instead? -Jéské(v^_^v) 04:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
