User talk:Philippe/Archive5

Philippe's status: lost

For 26 & 27 April and the immediate future, I expect the majority of my on-wiki time to be directed at the Board of Trustees election. Please forgive slower than usual responses on this talk page in the meantime.

To remind me not to take things too seriously around here!

Archives: 1, 2

Please note: if you are here because of an action that I took that was noted with an OTRS ticket number, I request that you discuss it with me prior to undoing or changing the action.

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)

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)

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)