Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:00, 27 February 2008

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.

Archives: User:Philippe/Archive, User:Philippe/Archive2

My official edit count using the Query API:

My edit count on Wannabe Kate, which does not include administrator actions or certain other actions (deleted pages, etc):

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.

New messages for February

Hi Philippe,

I'm interested in making some edits to the LEK Consulting page and am new to Wiki. As the page's creator, can you advise how best to go about this?

Jacques6383 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on user's talk page. - Philippe | Talk 15:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ecuhek

Hi, I'm not really sure why my article (Warwick JIsoc) was deleted. It seemed like it was on grounds of notability but I have found loads of others of a similar calibre. For example, ]], ] etc If it is on grounds of comprehensiveness or structure, I wasn't finished, I simply hit 'save page' rather than 'show preview' by mistake like the person below me. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a bunch --Ecuhek (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Forge Consulting LLC

I believe my article was deleted because I hit "Save Page" instead of "Show Preview" and saved a VERY incomplete page. I want to recreate the article as part of my effort to get some articles made for quite notable businesses in my area that are absent from Misplaced Pages. This company, for instance, is based out of Buffalo but has an office near my hometown — they are quite notable for intensely lobbying the state of NY to change its General Obligations Law to allow for structured settlement brokers to waive their commission (previously disallowed) in cases involving the terrorist attacks of September 11. Let me know if this is "notable" enough so that I can finish the initial page and start on some others. One at a time! -Gabusinesses (talk)

Hi there. I've undeleted the article and moved it into your own userspace at User:Gabusinesses/Forge Consulting LLC so that you can continue to work on it. Once you think it's ready, it can be moved out into the encyclopedia (I'd be happy to take a look at it and let you know what I think before you do that if you'd like - a second set of eyes is usually a good thing). - Philippe | Talk 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Philippe, that's probably the best method for me to use. I'll certainly get your opinion on the article before I move it over! Gabusinesses (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jameel Sewell

Thanks so much for protecting that page. I had added a talk about the whole thing this morning, but then he kept editing it. Then he had to go and start cussing at me. Not cool. Once again, thanks. Boydannie (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont fully understand why I was chastised about this whole thing when I tried to get a converstaion going on the talk page AND got cussed at, AND was the person who requested help and protection on the page. Guess you're having a bad night? Boydannie (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that you did a lot of things correctly. What you did incorrectly was to revert the page more than the alloted 3 times. If you read Misplaced Pages policy at WP:3RR, you'll see that the 3 revert rule is an "electric" fence - in 99% of cases, it automatically triggers a warning. I know it's no consolation, but the other party got one too.

The warning is just that - a warning. I didn't issue any blocks because I think it's possible to work this out with it. I'm sorry you think the warning is unfair - and frankly, i agree that you've been the more mature party in this - but it would be horribly negligent of me to warn one party for violating the rule and not warn both. - Philippe | Talk 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Philippe, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES  16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Special Log

Special Log

Just so you know, when searching through Special Log, it lists based upon WHO took the action. So, if you search for me, you never see the +sysop entry, just the entries where I gave Rollback to someone. You have to search based upon who gave them the rights (in this case Cecropia). I found out it was Cecropia by going to Special:Userrights, which editors don't have access to, but you could also do it by going to Ashibaka's RFA and seeing who closed it. So, no problem with the log, just an understanding of how it works. - Philippe | Talk 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't true for all people. Do a search for several other sysops and you'll find that the records are there. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did a search based on the way you suggested. Look closely. It says that User:Ashibaka's rights were changed from "none" to "none," both times. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Same for everyone else who got +sysop that time...look at the others. :-) - Philippe | Talk 01:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another thank you is in order.

I tell you, I tried to be nice to that Paulinho28 character and he is just coming unglued on me. Not only is he still going nuts after a 31-hour block, his edits are totally idiosyncratic. He's clogging up the edit histories of his pet projects with little tiny edits made one at a time. Times like this I wish I hadn't given back the mop and bucket. It would be a pleasure at this point to give hime a timeout myself. In any event, I thank you for your intervention. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm keeping an eye on him now.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bless you. You're a genuine asset to this site. Hope to work with you again soon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• If he'd have only left out the "a," it would almost have been either a compliment or a statement of fact.  :) Seriously, I've seen chips on shoulders in the last five years or so, but this little fellow in Rome really takes the canelloni. Thanks, bro. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Thanks for handling it with good humour. - Philippe | Talk 01:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bydesignonly

I see you blocked Bydesignonly, then unblocked with the comment "Bad block." Just curious, why was it a bad block? The user account is promotional and does appear to be a role account. -- Kesh (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I went back and forth on this. Usually, when I block an account as promotional, I want to see Username:ABCcompany creating an article about ABCCompany. In this case, it wasn't that clear cut. Since I felt like it would probably get killed on appeal, I thought the better thing to do was sit back and wait for a more clear cut violation. I agree that it's fishy, but I think it's just skating the line. - Philippe | Talk 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I read on WP:DRV#Sheraton Cadwell, while they didn't directly create an article about the company, they created several promotional articles for their clients. Since they don't list in the user's Contributions, I can't see for myself. -- Kesh (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what? You're entirely right. I'm not sure how I missed that, but I've blocked them. Thanks for taking the time to question it. - Philippe | Talk 05:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This exchange between the author of this spam-oriented stuff and the one editor that tried to help, sums it up pretty well. The spammer sugar-coated a snub of that editor's offer to help, and took verbal shots at the admins that saw it for what it was. The spammer has already given up, because it was clear they weren't going to get to do the article the way they wanted to, i.e. as self-promotion. That, and the writing was atrocious, but that's another matter. Baseball Bugs 05:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and Kesh was entirely right to call me on it. I clearly didn't look into that one hard enough. That user is probably best spending their time somewhere other than Misplaced Pages. - Philippe | Talk 06:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was mostly just curious to find out your reasoning. Sometimes I see something that looks off, but the admin points out a fact or rule I overlooked. I'm glad I could help out in this instance. And thank you so much for the barnstar! -- Kesh (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arbonne International

An article that you have been involved in editing, Arbonne International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arbonne International. Thank you. Argyriou (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your prompt response.Momento (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. :-) - Philippe | Talk 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please note: "Dictionary of nutty Beliefs & Religions" was not entered by me as you can see from the history. What I have entered however is the following (properly cited):

In 2008, an article by The Register stated that the organization is "widely recognized as a cult" and that the editing of the Prem Rawat article by some editors of Misplaced Pages is evidence of "... the most extreme conflict of interest in the history of Misplaced Pages."

As published here: The Register

Attempts to discuss edits with Momento have gone without response. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I left the talk page of the article conveniently unprotected for you to discuss exactly this type of thing. :-) - Philippe | Talk 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate entry deleted

Dear Philippe, I don't understand why I can't create an entry on Rabbi Herbert Friedman, one of the most important American Jewish leaders of his generation. My first try was deleted by a bot because it was copied from the web site of his foundation, but I re-wrote and expanded it (see below) and now you have deleted it because it is too short. I have often come across short entries in Misplaced Pages and they serve as stems for further editing and expansion. If there is a length minimum for entries, please tell me what it is. This is not a very welcoming experience, and although I have contributed before I am not likely to bother again. You can google me to find out why I should be welcomed as a legitimate contributor. I don't think I will be able to find this page again, so if you answer me please copy your answer in an email to antmk@mindspring.com

Thank you,

Melvin Konner, MD, PhD, Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor, Emory University

Rabbi Herbert A. Friedman Founding President Emeritus, Wexner Heritage

Rabbi Herbert A. Friedman is a Reform rabbi and the founding president (now emeritus) of the Wexner Heritage Foundation. He inspired the Wexner Heritage Program seminars, which have now been educating Jewish community leaders for over two decades. He co-founded the Foundation in 1985 with Leslie Wexner, chairman of Limited Brands, and served for a decade as president. For more than two decades before that he was executive chairman of the national United Jewish Appeal, where he designed and led the missions to Israel that became the basis for much of the American Jewish community's support for Israel. As a U.S. Army chaplain at the end of World War II and later in collaboration with the Hagana he was deeply involved in rescuing Jews from Europe and in the immigration (Aliyah Bet) of many thousands of those Jews to Israel. His forceful personality, innovative leadership, and dedication to both Israel and the American Jewish community laid the foundation for the strong and extensive relationships between that community and the state and people of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangldwing (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Konner - You're welcome to create an article about Rabbi Friedman; he's clearly notable under our guidelines. I deleted it, however, because other than his name and title, there was no content. We need a bit more than that. What you've typed here is sufficient, and I'll even create the article for you. I'll copy this to you by email. - Philippe | Talk 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Page unprotection assistance needed

Could you help me with this? Thanks. --MrStalker  21:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at that and decided I'm not qualified to make a judgment. I know next to nothing about movies or our standards for when they should be allowed to get an article, so I'm deferring that to another admin. Luckily, there are several that watchlist this page and hopefully one of them can help out. I'm sorry I can't help. - Philippe | Talk 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okey, thanks anyway. --MrStalker  21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you got the same message that I did.

My, but our little Italian friend with the chip on his shoulder has demonstrated the same remarkable facility with some of the coarser words of the English language with both of us. This reminds me of the time when I was an admin and I properly deleted some silly Urban Dictionary dicdef...and the user just went nuts. I mean nuts. Ran me up on RfC. I had to protect my talk page and I got hammered for that as well. I wound up quitting over that. Now it's happening again. Can we just shut this guy down for good at this point? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm toying with it right now. I'm sort of thinking this is a "give him enough rope to hang himself" situation. I think that when he comes back, he'll be unable to resist doing something stupid, in which case I'm prepared to issue a MUCH longer block. - Philippe | Talk 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. FYI, he is still at it, blanking his user page and that of the IP page. I shouldn't have left that nasty note on the IP page, but that nonsense of his just caused me to see red. Could I impose on you to protect both of those talk pages? Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Protection

Hello. There was actually one more IP vandalism edit today, so please go ahead an protect Stormbreaker (novel). Thanks! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman calendar article

THanks for semi-protecting the Julian calendar article. As I predicted, Mr Anonymous is now starting to add similar comments to the Roman calendar article -- see . Could you please semi-protect the Roman calendar article too? THanks. --Chris Bennett (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. :-) - Philippe | Talk 17:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly! --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again, this time in the article Mercedonius. See . Please semi-protect this too.

What is the next step with someone like this? He clearly is deliberately making a point of not going to the Talk page with his issues. --Chris Bennett (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a pain. I'm sorry that you have to deal with it! Unfortunately, I can't just keep semi-protecting articles because they're eventually going to become UN-protected again and we're setting ourselves up for a major problem. I can block him for disruptive editing, but I'm going to have to give him fair warning (usually on EACH IP address) before I block him. And because he's an IP editor, I can't block the IPs indefinitely. For now I'm going to start issuing final warnings (actually, you can as well - every time you see him doing it on an IP address that I haven't warned, leave {{subst:uw-generic4}} on his user talk page. Then, if he does it again from that address, let me know and I'll block it. - Philippe | Talk 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK will do.

I did a WHOIS on his IP addresses. Two of them are terminals in the Islington public library. The third, which is the one he is currently using, is not so clear -- all WHOIS says is that it's in Hackney -- but I suspect it's also a public library terminal. I suppose editors using such terminals who have a WP account wouldn't be affected. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the type of block that's placed on them, but in general, yes, you're correct. However, there may be other editors using those terminals anonymously: particularly from a library. We're an encyclopedia after all. :-) I think we're to the point, though, where blocks may be unavoidable to get the point across. - Philippe | Talk 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I didn't notice it before but the third address is really a group: 156.61.19.xx. I've posted this notice on each address of this type used so far, with an explanation, but it looks like these are server-assigned. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an IP range. I had seen that and considered whether it would be effective to do a range-block to get them up, but it's a potentially huge amount of collateral damage for relatively (no offense, but he's not deleting the main page here...) disruption. - Philippe | Talk 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree but what are the options? This is turning into a Mexican standoff, where the last man standing wins. I've already been through one of these situations, where someone who got completely bugeyed about capitalization, of all things, kept hammering at it until everyone else just gave up to keep the peace. It seems to me to be a serious weakness in the WP concept -- Gresham's Law. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the "Last Warning" notices were fairly effective. The Nameless One has stopped ranting in the articles and has confined himself to small changes in Mercedonius that reflect his position. He also hasn't returned (yet) to Julian calendar even though semi-protection has now expired. So we're making progress. But he's still completely anonymous, he still refuses to use the Talk page and he still refuses to stop making edits unless his solution is accepted, no matter how often I knock down the coconuts he sets up. Since he is at least being halfway civilised, I am now responding to his Edit Summary points on Talk:Mercedonius. But I still see no way to bring this to a close, since I don't see him responding to Mediation or Arbitration. Any suggestions? --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice please

Hi, you advised me to not engage a particular editor who has continued to target the Rosie O'Donnell article in what I consider to be a baiting behavior of edit-warring perhaps to get me into a 3rr violation. I've sourced and double-checked everything but they simply revert and want to debate me on the talk page. Any advice? Benjiboi 11:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Benji, and thanks for asking. I think it's time to get this one some more eyes on that article. Have you considered asking the Mediation Committee for help? Sometimes the presence of a formal mediator, which is one of the steps of our dispute resolution procedures, can be a calming influence and also help persuade editors to come to some middle ground. Sometimes, parties disappear altogether when the Mediation Committee appears.

There's another group, the Mediation Cabal, which is less formal, that might also be able to help out. You could also ask for a third opinion.

Probably my favorite option would be to request an article RFC - most folks are aware of our editor RFC's, but there's a similar process to quickly get eyes on an article and determine whether something fits or doesn't fit. It can be a really effective way to sort the curd from the whey in a dispute like this. As with other RFCs, you can find the directions at WP:RFC.

In any case, you're right to avoid being baited into a 3RR issue. Be on guard for that. As you no doubt saw, several of us (including you) took some heat and it was quite frustrating - it's the sort of thing to "bruise a ripe fruit".  :-)

Please feel free to ask me for more help as you go through this process. I think I'd start with an article RFC and then to the Mediation Committee if you weren't able to come to some sort of consensus. It's not a quick process, but it's usually a process that sticks, which beats the hell out of revert wars. - Philippe | Talk 16:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for supporting NPA policy

This comment by you a couple of weeks ago is excellent, Philippe. Enforcement of the no personal attacks policy like this supports the fabric of Misplaced Pages's community. You've managed to get across a strong message here without in any way coming close to violating NPA yourself. Well done. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Coppertwig. Comments like that mean the world to me. It's quite appreciated. - Philippe | Talk 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FFS

If you do a deletion based on an OTRS message, can you PLEASE close the OTRS message afterwards? Thank you. DS (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, my mistake. I honestly thought I had. Thanks for pointing it out. - Philippe | Talk 18:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan unprotect request

I think protecting the page was fine when it was the subject of an edit war with an IP user. However, now that it is the subject of an AfD, it is extremely unfair to the defenders to be unable to add the citations that would refute the claims of lack of notability. Now that the phrase "openly gay" has been removed, and we think that the anon editor was Jay Brannan, BLP concerns should not be an issue. In any case thats an concern for editing an article, not deletion. I really don't think that anyone is going to add back openly gay in the current situation. There have been more than a few articles that have been improved to change the AfD per the Heymann Standard, and this article deserves that same chance. Requesting change to semi-protection. — Becksguy (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having the article protected during an AfD is not ideal. I'd far prefer to have it available to be edited. However, since the subject of the article has contacted OTRS and expressed BLP concerns, I'm not 100% confident that I'm ready to unprotect it yet. The subject asked for the AfD, as I recall (although I say that without going to the AfD to check so I could be mis-remembering), and I have a pretty strong suspicion the edit warring will resume - so for now, I'm leaving protection in place, though I'll go and look at the AfD closely this afternoon (and the OTRS ticket) and see if there's anything to change my mind. - Philippe | Talk 14:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I should have pointed out that you can use the {{editprotected}} template to request changes while the page is protected. - Philippe | Talk 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I know about editprotected. It would have been very difficult and time consuming to overhaul an article piecemeal with editprotected tags for each edit. Anyway, it's moot now, as the protection expired (I assume expired) today. Thanks for considering it. — Becksguy (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The protection did, indeed, expire. I'm obviously okay with changes to the article now, but if they result in the same disputed content being readded again, I'm likely to re-protect the article. If we can make positive changes, though, and find some way to minimize the edit warring, I think that's for the best. - Philippe | Talk 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We were reverting driveby IP deletions that appeared to be based on nothing more than a homophobic agenda, as those IPs made no other changes, constructive or otherwise. However, see my comment in Talk:Jay Brannan#"Openly gay" as to edit wars over, and appropriateness of, this phrase, once we knew that it was Jay Brannan himself. We obviously have a lot to work through on this article to get to consensus, but I believe we will. — Becksguy (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Request unprotection of WGA strike article

Hi, I'd like to request unprotection of Writers Guild of America strike (2007–present). Looking at the 48 hours prior to its protection, most of the IP editors made good or at least good-faith edits to the page, and the article has had a history of positive additions by unregistered editors. What little vandalism it gets is trivial to overcome.--Father Goose (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You sold me. Done. - Philippe | Talk 18:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi and User:str1977

I recommended that they not engage. Revert warring is clearly engaging. I stand by my recommendation that the two of them walk away and not engage with each other. - Philippe | Talk 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, then. Benjiboi is interpreting it as continuing to revert but not to discuss. Your clarification on his talk page should help. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

MediaStudies110

As you are the only admin I really know, I just wanted to point this user out to you. The article they created, "Media Studies at UVA", which I would link to only I have no clue how, seems to be purely an advertisement for that Major. The article was on a track to be deleted, but I dont know what happened with that. If you could take a looksee and see what it is you see, that would be great, but something strikes me as odd with that one. Queerbubbles (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have started an AFD on Media Studies at UVA; I agree that it's fairly unencyclopedic. I could make an argument that it's nothing but advertising but it's sufficiently borderline that I wanted wider community input. Good catch, thank you. - Philippe | Talk 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:HenryWLasterLeatherPride

User talk:HenryWLasterLeatherPride and User talk:70.161.189.155 appear to be the same person per http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Leather_Pride_flag&action=history. HenryWLasterLeatherPride has been blocked indef by you but the IP was only blocked 31 hours by User:Master of Puppets apparently not realizing they were the same person or just not award of editing after his blocked of the IP. Or maybe it's a case of the IP finally registered as HenryWLasterLeatherPride and your block has them both ultimately indef blocked? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no easy way to tell without checkuser permissions, and no checkuser's going to run a check like that for us. What I do know, from Special:Ipblocklist, is that the IP associated with our friend Henry has not tried to log on anonymously, because I'd see a block entry for that. So, my inclination is to believe that we got him with the name block. I'll keep an eye out though, and if you see him come back as an anon or another name, please let me know and I'll get him there too. - Philippe | Talk 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SMUinsider

This person is a SPA and his edits are painting St Matthews University in the most negative light in the short number of edits possible. Might you keep an eye on him? Bstone (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I see some real issues with NPOV on there. I'll keep an eye on that. - Philippe | Talk 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to give you a quick "Thank You" for semi-protecting Pencil. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. happy to help. - Philippe | Talk 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

user: nbngroup

Hey, I reported this guy to the usernames to be looked at page, and it was removed due to the fact that his name had Group in it didnt mean he was a advertiser... however when I looked online NBN group was a legit company. A few minutes later the dude has turned his userpage into one giant advert for that company. I'm not getting any love from the board, bots or admins who look there, so could you take a looksie? Thanks. Queerbubbles (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

nm... finally got love. thanks anyway! Queerbubbles (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous. Thanks Pedro :  Chat  for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real... Kim Dent-Brown 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

consider BLP

The percentage of edits by IP vandals is too high at the Larry Sanger article. Please consider indefinetly semi-protecting the article. It has become a troll magnet. Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

UAA

How exactly is bastardpunk not against the username policy? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's try it the other way around... what's wrong with it that requires immediate blocking? Someone can self-describe as a bastard (a child of an unwed mother and father) and a punk. You may certainly request that they change it, but it's sufficiently borderline that I'm unwilling to block for it. - Philippe | Talk 04:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough, regarding the usage of the term bastard I mean. It's just that it's almost invariably used as a derogatory label - I'll drop a comment on the talk page. Thanks. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Thanks for semi-protecting both of my subpages I requested. NHRHS2010 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh hai

So there I was, innocently reading the admin noticeboard when I leave my mouse hovering over your signature and see lolcat a few seconds later. I blame you for the Mountain Dew now dripping down my monitor :) Shell 01:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Andre Nickatina

Hello. I see alot of admins deleting the andre nickatina page. It is also currently protected. I wonder why? Andre Nickatina needs a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianGS (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Wyllie

Did you forget to delete the talk page when you deleted the article Robert Wyllie earlier? ww2censor (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidently. :-) I got it now, and thank you. - Philippe | Talk 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding comment was added at 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I just wanted to call to your attention the WP:3RR as it pertains to the writer/not-a-writer debate on Matt Sanchez. Please be sure to not revert the same content 3 times in a 24 hour period. - Philippe | Talk 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of 3RR. If you plan to gangwheel the page, it will be reverted soon enough, by others. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "gangwheel" - I've made no significant edits to that page. I'm calling to your attention a policy. I regret your aggressive response to that. - Philippe | Talk 04:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And I "regret" the officious tone of your "warning." Stop restoring it on my page. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> OK, but... well, you've been warned. The next action may result in blocking. - Philippe | Talk 05:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)