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.
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]
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]
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]
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. --DavidShankbone10:53, 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]
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]
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.delanoygabsadds21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 | Talk00:24, 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 | Talk01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what an absurd block. It's nearly as absurd as telling somebody not to warn IP vandals. Slrubenstein...what were you thinking? Bad, bad, bad block. - auburnpilottalk01:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't make any sense at all. Your message contradicts what the RC patrol does pretty much every minute of every day, and would make monitoring IP's who are disrupting the project pretty much impossible. Are people who sit at a public library computer etc allowed to have the run of Wikipedia? THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted elsewhere, this is the most shockingly dumb block I have ever seen. And I thought my capacity for shock over stupid blocks had been exhausted years ago ... --Kralizec! (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My word, I must say PHONE that you must have the understanding of a saint to shrug this one off. If anyone ever asks about the block in your log, do feel free to send them my way and I'll let them know that it had nothing at all to do with your actions. –xeno (talk)11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Anti-Flame Barnstar
For being injured in the line of duty and maintaining a cool-head in situations that would likely enrage most others, as well as your ongoing contributions to cleaning up vandalism on Wikipedia. Please do continue your excellent work reverting (and warning!) vandals who seek to deface Wikipedia. –xeno (talk)11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments and reassurances, and for the amazingly quick speed with which the situation was analyzed and discussed (and for the Barnstar :D). I do hope Slrubenstein will generate a discussion about the practice of warning IP vandals (in whatever place is appropriate) as I can see he has very strong opinions about the issue, and it will always be in the back of my mind that I'm doing something that he disagrees with. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Once things have cooled down I will try to generate such a discussion and I hope you will participate. I hope it is clear to you that per policy I never see blocks as punitive and my only intention was to get your attention to read my comment on your talk page (I repeat: th block was not punitive; it was not because you did anything wrong - it was to get you to stop doing something so we could talk about it). I hope I have been sufficiently clear that I recognize that it is tedious work, reverting all the acts of vandalism you identify ... I admire the work you do and am grateful that you do it. I do indeed think one thing you did (creating new talk pages) was pointless and counterproductive but obviously most people think I am wrong and you are right. As long as that is the case I cannot fault you if you continue doing what you did. I sure would appreciate it if you accepted my comments criticizing the practice (not you personally, just the sole act of creating new talk pages for IP addresses) as being made in good faith, and give them serious consideration - try to understand my reasoning. As I stated in my comment at the start of this threat, I knew you were acting good faith and i promise i will give very serious consideration to why you think I am wrong, and why you and so many others think that the common practice makes a necessary point and is effective. I really will try to follow your (collective) reasoning. And I hope when it is a good time we can all have an open discussion about our vandalism policies. Whatever the outcome i hope we can all accept that the people we disagree with are acting in good faith. I have to say, if what I did causes you to think more about the value of this practice, I am glad. But I deeply regret any grief i caused you in the process. Slrubenstein | Talk00:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job reverting vandalism, but next time try reverting vandalism without HUGGLE or TWINKLE - Now that would really prove your skill (Thats how we used to revert vandalism back in the old day) Cya round --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the above user in that going old school would really prove your skill but with the great tools that have appeared to fight vandalism over the years, it is a thing of the past.
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For always seeing your weird but stand out name pop up on recent changes and do your best to clean up the junk on the wiki, i give you this in the hope you can continue your incredibly hard work. Vandal fighting should never be taken for granted, i know it is tedious and can sometimes be boring but keep it up, just dont burn yourself out! Monster Under Your Bed(talk)05:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I think patrolling manually still has some uses - both for learning the ropes and also catching Hugglers errors. It's fairly common to see that the Hugglers, including myself, reverting an instance of vandalism to a state that had been previously vandalized by a different user and not caught. It's much easy to catch that when looking directly at the history page. Still, it would be too painful going back to that now. Thanks again, THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
technical advice
Can you tell me how you use huggle, or issue your warnings? A user just vandalized talk:Judaism[2] - I just reveted, but this user has already created a user page and certainly needs to be warned per the arguments you and others made earlier, Slrubenstein | Talk13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it looks like StaticGull hit him with the Huggle version of {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|Talk:Judaism}}, or something similar. If one was not a single purpose vandalism fighting account like myself, directly substituting by hand would seem the most sensible. Huggle would be out of the question given that it's a separate program that would need to be started just to issue a warning. Twinkle could be useful to install, but probably only if you use any of the numerous other things it does. Sorry if I stated anything that is common knowledge to you. I have been experimenting with various approaches to warnings and the such given the issues you have raised. Unfortunately it's tricky to interpret vandal behavior to figure out what works best. Nonetheless, my approach is changing somewhat. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't state anything new to me - these bots and such for dealing with vandals is new to me. I am glad StaticGuilt did something. I take people who have registered and created user pages more seriously because (1) it gives them access to semi-protected accounts and (2) suggests to m that they either take WIkipedia more seriously and plan to stick around, or know wnough about Wikipedia to progress from simple vandalsim to gaming the system in some way. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate all of them, Slrubenstein | Talk14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patrol
It is very helpful that you're doing so much work on newpage patrol, but you could do a lot more help if you also worked from the far end of the queue instead of the near end (for instance, pages expire from the queue after 720 hours, patrolled or not). Also, you're hitting a lot of stuff that would normally be taken care of by JVbot. DS (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you noticed, but if you look at the history of Milton High [3] then you'll notice on two occasions we reverted the page simultaneously. Just wanted to say good work on helping out with the vandals. Remember to Be Bold! -- RandorXeus02:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! That's been happening a lot recently — maybe its a Huggle MediaWiki bug? I don't recall it ever happening before the latest update. In one instance Cluebot, Xy7, and myself all hit a vandal simultaneously ... now hoping for a four way vandal hit for a laugh. Keep up the good work, THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hai! Thanks for editing my article on "Spectral concentration problem". I was a novice to wiki and I was greatly elated to see my article being put in proper format. I tried to add a figure on "discrete prolate spheroidal sequence" on that. But, I was not successful. Any suggestion as to how to add pictures in the wiki.
I wrote this article as a background material for "Multitaper" spectral analysis technique. To give an account as what makes "DPSS" different from other traditional tapers used in spectral estimation.
I also wrote another article on "Chronux"--> a open source package for analyzing neurobilogical time series data. Do pen your views over the same.
hmmm..good work with huggle mate. I find twinkle a nice tool, and I guess huggle is for Microsoft Windows only so I can't use it.:p Thanks for the info though, and good luck with your work. Cheers. -Abhishek Talk|Contribs05:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have learned, being slow is a virtue. Using rollback can really piss off people, especially because it doesn't seem to use an edit summary. I use TW for those. So what I'm hearing is that I should log on? Bullocks to the test I have tomorrow :P XF Lawtalk at me10:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huggling > studying for tests. Super fast Huggle use, especially when one does not take the time to look at the recent page history, seems to inevitably lead to issues THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, I'm not out to get Over 9000 edits. I'm just looking to do some work while falling asleep to these VP debates in the US. You are right. When you are an admin, please send me RFA spam :P XF Lawtalk at me11:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For making your brilliant name constantly appear on my watchlist and your tireless efforts to fight vandalism, have a barnstar. You are a crusading machine against these petty morons. Thank you. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ18:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese Singaporeans
Hi again; yeah i know it was distracting, i kinda did it to REALLY draw attention to the fact that the whole article is basically a series if mini essays and POV without any credible citation at all, but happy to leave at the moment. Thanks for you help 121.79.19.4 (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not something for me. Mainly because I doubt my long-term commitment to the project (and sundry other reasons). Thanks though, your comment brightened up my morning :) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{User:Argyriou/Userboxen/reallynotadministrator}}, eh? FWIW I think you would have made an outstanding admin, but to each thier own. In an event, do keep up the good work ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was so funny. That dude left that message so many times except the funny thing was, was that he never mentioned the dad was on the phone. So when it got down to "THEN WHO WAS PHONE?," it could have been the mom or a step-parent. The DYK was cool, but I crushed it on Knott's Halloween Haunt. I completely wiped out the unsourced article from a PROD and now it's very important. LOL. Not really, but it is saved. XF Lawtalk at me06:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to lose you to content creation lol. It would have been fun to see what would have happened if you had made this edit while editing anonymously. They'd be lining up to slap an IP with uw-delete for that :D THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have been Huggled, Twinkled, and templated. However, if an IP did make that edit, and use an appropriate edit summary, I think the right type of editor would have let it slide. Be bold, right? Lawshoot!06:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt it had to go (especially as some of it appears to be a copyvio), but it would have been an interesting experiment to see if an IP would have been afforded the option of being bold by everyone who was on Huggle at the time. This is giving me bad ideas heh. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From a Huggle standpoint, there seems to be certain types of users who wish to 'beat others to the punch.' In this case, I think the IP would have no chance. Now, whenever I see removal of content, I look at the content used and search for references. If an IP removes referenced material, I'll revert, because a change like that IP or no, should generally go to the talk page. Bad ideas eh? You are one of the most prolific vandal-fighters. You and I both know there's no need for an experiment because we know exactly how things work. For some reason, most editors feel that anything "WP:" applies only to registered users :\ Don't go all rogue, if you haven't already, lol. Lawshoot!15:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we take the same approach to IP content removal. I usually open up the page in a browser and come back a few minutes later to see if anything constructive has happened. If not, it generally gets undone unless it was unreferenced and if I can't figure out whether its factual and useful. Much easier if they just replaced the entire page with PENIS, but I'm getting bored with that sort of mindless reverting. Might try to do some more content creation; you've inspired me to do so lol THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
October the 24 was truly a dark night for Wikipedia. As the vandal-fighters in the trenches grew weary with no repairs in sight for their broken weapons, all hope seemed lost. Thankfully, one user had the guts to roll up their sleaves and get old skool on the invading forces...
Andy (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Yes it is reaally funny! Give you a race to 20 edits on anything (not vandalsim, lol) 3 2 1 Go! I'm winning with this message! Andy (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the requim for a dream on in the background but Im only on 7 though! I love your responses, im going to have to give you a good humour barnstar. Lol! Andy (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, same here, i really enjoyed that and it was the most amount of edits in a short time for me, By the way, since we last spoke merc has beaten me another 3 times. Ha ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheWeatherman (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, thanks a lot for the barnstar you gave me. I would of thanked you then but my computer decided it didn't like me and crashed. I still cant use it now. Lol! ;-) Andy (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently reverting the page back frequently due to feqent vandalism, which includes profanity and insults against Chris Hecker by one individual and the removal of a section by someone making an unilateral decision without adequate discussion by another. I'm not truly in an edit war, just defending the page from vandals who are attempting to start one. --Valentine82 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The anonymous editor first replaced the article with unrelated content taken from the editing screen [4] (clearly just testing things out, no big deal), then replaced the article with their opinion of spelling [5], and then word bombed the article [6], [7]. All in all no big deal – the messages left on the talk page were intended to stop the disruption by educating the user, which appears to have worked. Let me know if you have any further questions, THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
