User talk:Who.was.phone

Old User

Are you the user formerly known as THEN WHO WAS PHONE? from a couple of years back? If so, welcome back. Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the answer is "yes", it would be a good idea to say so on your user page, to avoid any accusations of having two accounts for deceptive purposes. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not, although judging by his choice of account name and his user page he was a pretty cool guy. --Who.was.phone (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still might want to put something on your user page just in case. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Who.was.phone (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

Tagging established editors articles for speedy is quite offensive. Please remove it from mine. If you want to delete it, go to AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having just gone through the revision history, I see that you wrote "oh, check somebody contribs first, I will expand it, just like I did thousands of articles" as an edit summary for an edit you made after mine. My apologies for not checking through your contributions beforehand, all I saw was a thread-bare article that had no substance and failed WP:NOTE. Perhaps I may suggest that you put a tag such as {{underconstruction}} on the article or make a note in the edit summary that you will be developing the article so it doesn't appear to be a blank CSD A3 candidate? Who.was.phone (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to expand such articles within minutes, but also, I'd think that the "proved to be controversial during the Polish presidential election, 2005" would show notability to start with (I'd not create and save a stub that didn't make a claim to N). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the hasty tagging, I will be thorough in future. Who.was.phone (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reaction. We all make mistakes, I have my own set :) Checking editors contribs I find helpful when giving them various messages (in my case, mostly welcomes, but with occasional welcome-spam/vandal and such, too :>). I was mostly annoyed by the bot tagging my page with block warnings. I wonder if it could be made smarter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finished expanding the article to my usual standards, I hope you find it interesting (and notable) :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the article in question, and so have no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. However, "Tagging established editors articles for speedy is quite offensive" is, to be frank, nonsense. Whether an article should be speedy deleted should depend on the content of the article, not on who wrote it. In fact if anything there is a case for holding back for a while on articles created by new users, who don't know the standards required as well as established editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- James, you are incorrect. It is good you recognize that templating newbies is unhelpful, and WMF has indeed recognized this a while ago, and there is an effort to make newcomer experience nicer. But same holds true for us "old hands": I haven't contributed my 100,000 edits to Wikipedia to be subject to a series of mistaken warnings from the bot, or otherwise to be treated as a "cog in the machine". Sure, I make errors like everyone else, and I understand that templates messages speed things up, which when dealing with the torrent of recent changes and new article patrol is not a small thing. I just advocate more caution with using them, and checking one's contribs is a relatively quick and painless way to realize if one is dealing with an editor who is likely to fix things on his own or not. Established editors, when tagged on their page with extreme templates (like a speedy "your new article is likely trash and will be deleted, and we do not recognize you have the right to remove this template, rather, you have to waste your time arguing the case on the talk page"), are likely to be stressed and offended, thinking "I did so much to this project and now I am treated like some n00b/vandal". This is something to be avoided. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Established editors would have 'birthed' the article in user space, and then moved it to article space when it was ready. An editor's previous editing history doesn't trump the basic new article creation guidelines. The article's current condition is really the only thing that can be reviewed, not the editor's good intentions. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:NOENG not an issue now? It is a nice article, but I can't read Polish ... some would argue that I can't write in English either :-S Sitush (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster has now changed from criticising "Tagging established editors articles for speedy" to criticising tagging established editors' talk pages to tell them about articles nominated for deletion. Maybe that was what was intended in the first place, but it was not what was said. I also do not agree with the characterisation of the warning notice. I do not regard explaining your reasons on a talk page as wasting time. Occasionally I receive templated warnings, sometimes ones I regard as completely inappropriate. I do not, however, feel offended by receiving them, and I can't imagine why other people do. And as for feeling "stressed" because you receive a message you think inappropriate, well, anyone that hypersensitive would probably be better advised to give up editing Wikipedia, because they are likely to find it a very stressful experience. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Who.was.phone (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ce n'est pas du vandalisme

Bonsoir Who.was.phone, ce n'est pas du vandalisme, quand j'écrit des discussions de Maurilbert c'est parce que lui m'avais bloqué du wikipédia français pour rien, je voulais demande à lui pour débloqué-moi du wikipédia français mais il écrit pas en français de ma discussion:utilisateur, est-ce que toi tu peut me débloqué du wikipédia français S.T.P. parce que j'ai des sujets importants à faire moi S.T.P. faite moi confiance, je le jure. 204.237.12.81 (discussion) 4 juillet à 23h59 (UTC) mais écrit-moi en français (french) pas en Anglais (English).

Salut,

(S'il vous plaît excuser mon français, je suis en utilisant un traducteur)

A en juger par cette édition, il semble comme si vous étiez le 'spamming' sa page? Cette situation est aggravée par vous -

i) Avoir une page de discussion pleine d'avertissements passé, certains de Maurilbert

ii) Etre à l'étude pour WP:SOCKPUPPET

Merci!

Who.was.phone (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 on Marvie Beck

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Marvie Beck. In my opinion the article sufficiently indicates why the subject is important, specifically the article claims that she is "one of India’s top 5 celebrity makeup artist and hair stylists." While not the article probably does not pass the notability requirements in its current form, it is enough to survive CSD criteria A7. I have no objection if you would like to pursue an alternative deletion process against the article. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

When I added the CSD tag, one had already been added but had been removed by the author. The first line ("one of India’s top 5 celebrity makeup artist and hair stylist. She is a Magician at her craft of make up artistry and has experience of over 15 years.") made me think the article was a G11 article that due to the content touched on A7. Who.was.phone (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a pretty strong case for G11, but not A7. It is always problematic when an IP removes reasonable CSD tag, as to whether WP:AGF allows us to assume they are the page creator socking. I'm not confident enough about the G11 to re-add it, but I wont object if you want to. Alternatively, it can always be sent to AfD. In the meantime I will remove some of the overly promotional text. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that it meets WP:NOTE I'll agree --Who.was.phone (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure whether she would survive an AfD on notability grounds, what is currently present in the article would most likely not be enough, but there may be other references out there. To be clear though, I'm not asserting that the article does pass it, only that the article passes the much lower standard outlined in WP:CSD A7. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi Who.was.phone. 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 should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Khokhar

Hi fellow editor, I think there is some evasion going on at this article as the same reverts keep happening again and again. Deletion of references. Thanks

Hi,

I'll drop the editor a note to make him aware of WP:CITE.

Cheers!

Who.was.phone (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RCP proposal

Adamrce, Anna_Frodesiak, Baseball_Bugs, Csloomis, Cntras, Evaders99, Fæ, Shrike, Qwyrxian, WWGB, Who.was.phone:
met you guys at edit conflicts for undoing vandalism/ warning the same vandals/reporting at AIV.
I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Recent_Changes-_tags_for_patrolled_and_reverted_edits. This is regarding managing vandalism at RCP. What do you think?Staticd (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I think that's a brilliant idea mate, and judging by the reply from the admin on the Village Pump there seems to be a positive consensus for it.

Maybe you could drop Jimbo Wales or the guy (Sorry I can't remember his username) who coded Twinkle a line and ask them what they think of it?

Who.was.phone (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry W.w.p for being rude and nosy, but I hope no-one takes the advice seriously. Wiki is not bureaucracy. There's more proper ways of dealing with such a situation. He added a proposal, within what he thinks is useful. More experienced editors, whom watch the page, will give their opinion (if interested). ~ AdvertAdam^talk 08:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Who.was.phone (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to be quite so cautious there

Glad to see you doing more AV work and newpage patrol ... it's a great way to learn Wikipedia policy.

Just one note regarding VIST Group ... you had tagged it with {{advert}}, which was right, but I went further* and tagged it for speedy deletion because it made no assertion of notability whatsoever.

(Don't worry too much about this ... usually we have newer users we have to counsel to be more restrained with speedy tags, and it's actually sort of refreshing to post this). Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry if that's redlinked by the time you see it

Cheers mate.

Who.was.phone (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your help with that vandal. :) MJ94 (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help :) Who.was.phone (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]