User talk:THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

Welcome!

Hi THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --Paragon12321 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THEN WHO WAS THE PHONE? Bakilas (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, Jake Green is as notable an alumni to BHS as any of the others posted. Your revert is unwarranted. 72.203.140.149 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)crocoloc[reply]

THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

THEN WHO WAS PHONE? tj9991 (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? tj9991 (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOCOM II

Did you warn the other guy who was vandalising the page and reverting my edits?

- Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.221.143 (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP reference desk

Wikipedia:Reference_desk, some have found this to be a helpful resource for general reference questions of all kinds. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You stated that I vandalism in the PTC disambiguation, please state it. If you don't provide evidence I am reporting you to admin for false accusal. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, nevermind..............　－　－||| I figure wrong, got a bif confuse with the meaning when I the word Vandalism too quickly. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited/reverted anything on the PLM disambiguation page and, as far as I can tell, neither have you (unless you did it by IP quite some time ago). Let me know specifically what edit you are referring too and I will be happy to explain why I did whatever I did. Thanks THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you mean PTC disambiguation where I reverted a spam edit back to your version. All is cool then. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I wrote it wrong...－　－|||PLM.....PTC......rofl. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO THEN WHO WAS PHONE? YOU ARE THE DEMONS

AND THEN THEN WHO WAS PHONE? WAS A VANDAL tj9991 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DO YOU NEVER RESPOND TO MY VANDALISM ON YOUR TALK PAGE DO YOU NOT CARE ABOUT ME I THINK I AM GOING TO CRY tj9991 (talk | contribs) 13:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH HI THERE DO YOU VANDALISIM? THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and then john was the demons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.244.205 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The musical parody

An article that you have been involved in editing, The musical parody, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The musical parody. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot revert

Sorry about the bot's reversion of your edit. The edit you made changed just the right words to piece together one of the trip words. I'm working on a fix now, thanks for triggering it :) tj9991 (talk | contribs) 21:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think about it, it really seems weird that of all people your edit is reverted. The guy that I've talked to before and asked who was phone and vandalized his talk page. It was almost... destiny... tj9991 (talk | contribs) 22:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL WAT THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE MY SUNSHINE MY ONLY SUNSHINE tj9991 (talk | contribs) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your bot is broken. PEOPLE ARE STILL VANDALIZING WIKIPEDIA! THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!

Nice work reverting vandalism! Would you be interested in gaining access to the rollback feature? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback access granted

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Kralizec! (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for adminship

Would you object if I nominated you? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate (Lenerd (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Yes, I, with my less-than-one-month-old account, strongly object. Thanks. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why man, being nominated for Adminship may be a once in a lifetime opportunity, also, you seem to have met requirements, with you have over 2,000 edits to Wikipedia. --Chrismaster1 (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. 1) There are no specific requirements for adminship. I have almost 17,000 edits, and I'm (I don't think...) ready for adminship yet. Its not the quantity of edits that matter, its quality. 2) If any user would less than at least 3 months experience runs an RfA, that RfA will have a very, very high chance at failing. Generally, users need experience being a Wikipedian along with quality edits before they will have a good chance at passing an RfA. Sorry for butting in, Phone (can I call you Phone?). I mainly just came here to say very well done on the vandalism reverting you do. I see you reverting vandalism quite often, and your very good at it. Just don't make vandalism fighting your only priority if your planning to become en administrator. Anti-vandalism-only candidates will most likely fail. Add in some article writing. That's why we're here, aren't we? Best, RyRy (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RyRy. I also have been admiring Phone's vandal-fighting, but it takes far more work than using rollback to gain adminship. I'm not saying this to Phone, who seems to understand that, but to the well-intentioned users. Article-writing and discussion showing--when necessary--knowledge of policy are also important to gaining adminship. But good work, Phone. I'm glad you're here. --David Shankbone 10:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments RyRy and David. I have browsed the RfA discussions -- mainly for the drama that so often happens -- and saw very quickly that adminship is not a trivial thing to be achieved with mass Huggle/Twinkle reverts. When I first started editing my intent was to write/develop articles, but then I realized how bad of a shape the ones I'm interested in are in and was somewhat overwhelmed. So I switched to vandal reverting and haven't gone back yet. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I also agree with you, David. Knowledge of policy, good judgement, experience in adminly areas and a lot more are all good qualities administrators and RfA candidates should have. Phone, if you would like me to nominate you for adminship in the future, feel free to ask. I'll be sure to take a closer look at your contributions and history to see if your ready for adminship if you ever do ask. I'll see if I'll feel comfortable nominating you then after I take a closer look at you when you think your ready. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool name, too. A real eye-grabber. Very "Hagger?" --David Shankbone 11:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a measure of my naivety, I don't yet really understand why people want to be admins. I do intend to become more involved outside of RC patrol which may enlighten me, so who knows what will happen down the road. Thanks to you both. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the above question, some do it for power, some for prevalge, and some for the sake of having the extra buttons, and a very limited few do it becuase thye are aiming for bearuacratship, which is gained by acquiring and exercising good adminship. Also, in lew of this discussion, it may be a good idea for you to save a link to this discussion should an rfa for you come up again. And don;t give up on content contribution, the most shoddy articles here can get to featured status, they only require one contributer to care enough for them to put in those long hours. When and if you decide to head to rfa drop me a line and I will be happy to rile an rfa for you, or conominate if that be the case. FWIW, I think you will make a good admin someday. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to participate in a few AfD's, which I enjoy, and am contemplating how to approach improving articles in an non-trivial way. I still do things which, on reconsideration, could have been handled more appropriately. But I think I'm getting better -- and thanks for your confidence in how I'm progressing!! THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to help

I didn't know how to write in the table but i was asking someone to put the new match in there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.95.53 (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand

why do i have a warning if I was editing in the sandpit?--163.166.135.44 (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phone

WAT R U DOING WITH MY DAUGHTER?! 64.230.6.73 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siborne cheering section

Thanks for reverting the anonymous edits on Willem Jan Knoop and Albert Dominicus Trip van Zoudtlandt. I am afraid there is another, related vandal at work, as 92.12.190.59 seems to be new. I suppose this is some kind of organised effort, originating around the battle of Waterloo talk page. I do appreciate your efforts to protect against these people, because I myself rather write articles than waste my time on this kind of vandalism. I am therefore no longer going to bother to revert these edits. Hopefully they go away after a while. But it is certainly curious that some people still get so exercised about a quarrel that is 150 years old :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: post on my talk page

I gave him a uw-spam3 warning. Based on his edit summaries, he is obviously either trying to harvest email addresses to spam, or he is trying to impersonate the subject of the article. Either way, that is not an encyclopedic detail. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHE SED

"MY DAD IS DED"

Vandalism warning

Doh. The explanation is that I wasn't paying close enough attention. My bad, sorry! Prince of Canada^{t | c} 00:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nice name

and nice reverting :-) the wub "?!" 18:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I'm well on the way to having OCD for reverting ;) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

I noticed you've gotten some nasty attacks on your user and user talk pages so I've taken the liberty of semi-protecting your pages for awhile. If you don't want this, let me know and I'll be happy to unprotect either or both of these pages. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. It has become less frequent, but stamping it out completely is the best option THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Vandals patrol this morning! ZacBowling ^(user\|talk) 09:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doppelganger

May I assume that THEN WHO WASNT PHONE? (talk · contribs) isn't an alternate account of yours? Acroterion _(talk) 15:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope not mine :) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore blocked. Cheers, Acroterion _(talk) 15:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the Food science article revert. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehe no problem. Although I guess their odor could be related to food science :D THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramapough Indian Nation

Thanks for reverting the vandelism. Ramapoughnative1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks :) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love your username

This might seem pointless, but I just LOVE your username. Best wishes to you fighting vandalism. :)Invisible Noise (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I find your username pretty deep. Combined, for ultimate Wikipedia editing, one could have: INVISIBLE NOISE WAS PHONE! :P THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your username, too. Was this a quote or phrase from a film or TV show? SchfiftyThree 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's from 4chan, see the section below for a route to an explanation, fellow patroller :) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what's up

First of all, let me just say that you've done a fine job in reverting so much vandalism. Kudos to you.

Second of all, forgive me for prying, but what does your username mean? Is it some sort of inside joke or something? --Eastlaw (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your username seems familiar for some reason. I'm not sure why since it doesn't look like you do vandal patrol. Maybe I've reverted vandalism back to your good edits often :)

Anyway, I wanted to add a link to Encyclopedia Dramatica where the background of THEN WHO WAS PHONE? is explained nicely, but apparently the site is blacklisted. So, just type "THEN WHO WAS PHONE?" in to Google and click the first link to read about it (easier than me trying to explain :P). THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my username looks familiar, it's because I make a lot of new pages around here, mainly because I'm between jobs right now. :) Anyway, I looked up "THEN WHO WAS PHONE?". Thanks for the tip, I wouldn't have known this because I don't usually hang around 4chan and those types of sites (not that I have a problem with them, it's just that the crap-to-actually-funny-stuff ratio is a bit too low for me).

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if I were you, I wouldn't spend a lot of time talking about Encyclopedia Dramatica here. A lot of people (particularly admins & bureaucrats) have a real problem with that site, mainly because it has pages making fun of Wikipedia and its various resident personalities. Personally, I think the site is pretty funny, but I'm not going to publicly admit that. There are a lot of thin-skinned crybabies around here and I wouldn't want to see anyone have problems with "the management" here over what basically amounts to a difference of opinion. (And if you don't believe me, go to Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica and see how many deletion debates there were over this page. Yeah, they're that sensitive.) --Eastlaw (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page, and especially the older AfD's, made for some interesting reading with the entanglement of policies and personal feelings. I guess that all that needs to be said heh, oh and I managed to find some vandalism to revert in an AfD archive lol. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandolism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist. I know you meant well but it was a mistake, just do not do it again. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this, and the 15-minute block, here. Frank | talk 00:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that explains why Huggle stopped working lol THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the apparently drastic action - I hoped that it being only 15 minutes, it would be just enough to get your attention without doing any real harm. I know you have made many productive edits, and are earnest in combating vandalism, and i appreciate that - but creating new pages for anonymous users is not productive. unless you have compelling proof that a single person is using that IP address. Sometimes it is possible to prove this but usually all we learn is that it is a public location. In some kid uses a high school or public library or internet cafe to vandalize Wikipedia, all we can do is revert the vandalism - the next person who uses that computer terminal may not be a vandal, or the kid may go to another IP address the next time s/he wishes to vandalize a page. Similarly, a new user making good edits who is anonymous may not always use the same IP address (same reasons) so there is no point welcoming them. If they contribute to the talk page regularly the polite thing is then to invite them to register a username. But there is virtually nothing ever to be gained from writing on the talk page of an anonymous IP address, and when doing so creates a new page in fact your very well-intentioned act is just disrupting Wikipedia, by creating what really is a nonsense page. Does this make sense? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]