User talk:Jean-Philippe/Archives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here be the archives, yargh!

Jean-Philippe is a PETA troll and shouldn't be allowed to take over Wikipedia. I am correcting his vandalism.--Rotten 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see that you are another PETA fan bringing in your emotions rather than Wikipedia policies into editing. Do not blank when everything is properly cited. Do not attempt to gloss the article.--Idleguy 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 PETA 1.1 3RR 2 Helpme 3 Question 4 Relax, Max 5 Holocaust on your Plate 6 Wikiproject Proposal 7 Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page 8 Dan Matthews 9 Restraint 10 Movie stars and PETA 11 troublesome editor 12 Mrpainkiller, Neurophyte and Jean-Philippe 13 RFCU code letter 14 Fair use rationale for Image:BBC Russian School Sign.jpg 15 Sock puppetry by User:Mrpainkiller7 16 Mrpainkiller7 sock puppet impersonating you 17 Read WP policies.

[edit] PETA

No worries, Jean-Philippe. I didn't realize you had removed it, or I'd have probably left it out until we discussed it further, because I appreciate what you're doing on that page, and I respect that you're trying to maintain quality. My own position is that I don't mind whether something is pro- or anti-PETA; I just want to see the article be well-written and with a good use of sources. Unfortunately, most of the users the article tends to attract are not good editors and they want to turn the article into an attack page. It's very frustrating. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hi Jean-Philippe. This is just a friendly reminder regarding the three revert rule. You haven't broken it but are getting close on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article. Rather than revert warring and using edit summaries as your method of discussion, please stop and take it to the talk page instead. I am also reminding the other party in this mini-war. Cheers Localzuk ^(talk) 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you instantly take out the word 'radical' when refering to PETA? By definition, they are a radical group becasue their agenda is radical, their methods are radical and most of all their pholosphy is radical. Look up the word 'radical' and try to avoid an edit war. DocEss 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not vandalism; see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.

Please discuss changes on the article's talk page instead of blanket reversions. Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism. — Omegatron 21:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helpme

I'm trying to link to a .doc file but using [www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/506a06.doc] doesn't work. I've used google http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:MuQHN3d-CcYJ:www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/506a06.doc+460.963&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 html conversion as a temporary fix and am looking trough the help files but I'm having trouble finding a fix. Thanks in advance. Jean-Philippe 02:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

~~To Fix~~

The problem here i think, after a bit of testing is you are forgetting the http:// part so try http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/506a06.doc instead of www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/506a06.doc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by L Trezise (talk • contribs).

Thanks! It was really simple after all :-) Jean-Philippe 04:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

No problem, i tried it myself and found it hard, then went to a pre-defined template, and found that worked, then substituted yours in, and that didn't, so the only difference was that, anyway. Enjoy. and no worries, im new here too :) L Trezise 04:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary is accurate. Animal rights links to the Holocaust on your Plate section of PETA and by removing the header you are breaking the link. You've also violated 3RR. 200.88.223.98 06:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hum, no. Reverting vandalism do not count as a revert toward 3rr. Jean-Philippe 06:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. — Omegatron 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, yes I already know that, I was nominated for a block for 3rr. For anyone reading this, I'd like to point out I've obtained page semi-protection, and that my edits were simply trying to combat vandalism on the part of sockpuppets. See [1]. Jean-Philippe 07:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relax, Max

Hey Jean-Philippe. Please don't react negatively when your thoughts, ideas and reasoning are attacked vigorously. In doing so, the attackers, myself included, do not wish to attack you personally and any offence in that regarded is regretted and seeks apology. But do remember: a thought, an idea, a method of reasoning --- these things do not have feelings and will be attacked relentlessly until the truth is reached. THAT is what we are here for. So keep smiling and we'll all become better editors through a quest for truth and accuracy. Okee dokee? DocEss 17:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust on your Plate

I scanned the PETA article and I didn't see a "Holocaust on your Plate" listed with the other PETA campaigns. Thus the redirect is fairly useless and appeared to go no where. I now see that it is listed as a untitled middle paragraph is a second campaigns section. It would be best to move it out into its own section like the other campaigns, especially given the controversy. It would be best not to treat that this campaign differently than the other campaigns just because it is controversial? Also, having its own section would allow the redirect to be useful again since people could follow it without having to read through the whole PETA article. --Ben Houston 16:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The trick is to make sure it looks like you are giving as much emphasis to negative or controversial information the same as non-controversial information. It may be that some missteps in regards to this balance is what motivated the other use to separate the controversial campaign content into its own article. It would be best to either make a section in a controversy section about "use of Holocaust imagery" (this would be the best solution -- it is standard to group controversy or criticisms together) or just include the already existing campaign description into the list of described PETA campaigns. It is true that it dominates, in a way that doesn't really make sense, the existing philosophy/activism "Campaigns" section. --Ben Houston 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Proposal

Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk ^(talk) 11:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. Please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 18:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A check user Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin has shown "that Wright, Creighton, and Wise are sockpuppets". These accounts are Bryant Wright, Ralph Creighton, Stu Wise. Other suspected sock puppets are too old to check. I will keep everyone informed of progress. Nunquam Dormio 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Matthews

Edits like this are not very civil. Keep on and you'll be blocked. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, my bad. That article is a mess, but not a speedy. Apologies. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You re-inserted at attack on him by a website dedicated to smear campaigns. Really, I'm not the one who you should be apologizing to. Jean-Philippe 16:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, those are sourced statements. Apparently he did say them and that website is not the only source that refers to the incident, so I don't see what the argument is here. We cannot protect people from their actions, especially if they are recorded by the press. WP:BLP can only go so far. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found the original source of the quote, so that's as good as it gets when it comes to finding quality sources as well as mantaining neutrality. Feel free to reword the paragraph to make it more neutral if you wish, without losing the context of the quote. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You can always be bold and rephrase whatever bits you think are biased. The claim is adequately sourced as per WP:BLP and other relevant policies, and could certainly use an expansion, i.e. somebody could get around to write the actual biography.

Your perception of it as being entirely an attack page is your own POV (which is clearly stated on your user page) so I cannot use it as the sole criterion for deleting the page under WP:BLP. Since he is a public figure, the following bit of WP:BLP applies: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The quote is unfortunately well documented, so the only responsible person for it is Mr. Mathews himself. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Your comments helped to source the statement once and for all, which can only be a good thing. Regards, -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restraint

User lacks restraint when it comes to animal rights issues. Just look at his contributions.--Rotten 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I got my own wikistalker now, how quaint. Thanks for the compliment, now I know I must be doing right ;) Jean-Philippe 01:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie stars and PETA

Why are you so keen on putting celebrity names into the PETA article? L0b0t 20:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said you added any new names but you keep reverting the old names. The Mccartneys are quoted in that para so they should be mentioned, but the other names? What makes those particular celebrities noteworthy to the article? There are many, many people who support PETA, including quite a few with more name recognition than the celebrities listed. I removed all of them except the McCartneys because people were slowly adding more and we were in danger of rehshing the whole "List of Celebrity PETA Supporters" foolishness (my edit was prompted by today's addition of Alyssa Milano.). Having more than 1 or 2 names there is just poor writting, not a pro or anti-PETA viewpoint. L0b0t 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, could you be any more uncivil? I was merely asking you a question, not trying to argue with you. L0b0t 21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted on your talk page, rather than the PETA discussion page because it was a question for you. I routinely delete my talk page because a talk page is method for editors to TALK with eachother not a record of all comments ever posted by everyone. Please assume good faith. L0b0t 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to anyone reading this, this user immediately blanked[2] my previous responses to his inquiries back at his talk page. The irony, it hurts sometime. Jean-Philippe 21:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I did. As I said above, once I've read the message it gets deleted. If one is really that concerned with the messages people have left for me, one may simply consult the page's edit history. I don't understand why this vexes you to such a degree. As for your pain. Irony is defined as--

Noun: irony
1. caustic remark
2. incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

Since you were the party being rude in response to a legitimate question and since I did exactly what I said I was going to do (deleting messages after reading them), I don't understand how it hurts anyone. L0b0t 22:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] troublesome editor

Thanks for the additional information. I've added User:Mrpainkiller7 to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. I haven't added the IP though as it's an AOL open proxy. I'm not sure what else to do about the IP vandalism.

Update: He's just vandalized your (and my) user talk pages. Going to request immediate intervention. --Neurophyre^(talk) 22:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've used Template:blatantvandal on his talk page as required by WP:AIV. I'll report him there at the next hit. --Neurophyre^(talk) 22:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Listed on WP:AIV. --Neurophyre^(talk) 22:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Thatcher131 removed the listing from WP:AIV as a "content dispute," incorrectly in my opinion since it escalated to vandalism from a content dispute. S/he also protected VampireFreaks.com. Since User:Mrpainkiller7 hasn't yet vandalized anything else, I'll let it drop until that happens. The entry remains on WP:RFI. I'd suggest requesting an unprotect of the article after the weekend, perhaps. --Neurophyre^(talk) 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI in case you give a hoot about this beyond the immediate prevention of vandalism, but User:DocEss left a message on my talk page shortly after User:Mrpainkiller7 was listed at WP:AIV containing a question that is rather suspicious in light of its timing and its linguistic similarities to other stuff Mrpainkiller7 has posted. I suspect, given the contribs and block log of User:DocEss, that User:Mrpainkiller7 is a sock puppet. --Neurophyre^(talk) 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically, you were also vandalizing his talk page. Quoting from Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism:

Talk page vandalism
Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion.

(I think {{wr}} etc are out of date.) By all means pursue an RFI, and if you are suspicious of DocEss, file a checkuser request. If you two can be nice it will be easier for the next admin to see things your way. Thatcher131 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone be suspicious of me? What did I do?DocEss 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mrpainkiller, Neurophyte and Jean-Philippe

After a complaint at intervention against vandalism, I protected the article VampireFreaks.com. It was either that, or block all of you for disruption and personal attacks. I will unprotect the article in the morning. In the meantime, please consider the following:

• Reverting another user's talk page is pretty rude. There is a policy conflict between the user talk page policy, which says users can blank or archive warnings (although archiving is preferred by the community) and the vandalism policy, which says that removing warnings given to you is vandalism. I don't agree with the vandalism point of view, and I haven't seen a lot of support for it lately except among people who are fighting amongst themselves for other reasons. If someone deletes a warning they've obviously seen it. If you are concerned about someone's edits, use a verbose edit summary so that even if the warning is removed the edit summary will be visible.
• I understand there is a view among two of you that Mrpainkiller7's edits are detrimental to the article. There are lots of right ways to deal with this, including editing by consensus, Request for comment on the article or the user, Mediation, and third opinion. I'm not going to judge the content, but fighting (wherever it occurs) is the wrong way to deal with the problem.
• Personal attacks are not to be tolerated. Please deal with the content of edits, not character.

I'm leaving this message with each of you. If you keep fighting over talk pages, I suppose I or another admin will eventually figure it's time to block someone. Unless you are positive that you are 100% right and the other guy is 100% wrong, you should probably try and work this out peacefully in case the admins don't see things your way. Thatcher131 23:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU code letter

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. Yeah, I'll be watching this one... - Valarauka(T/C) 15:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Not a sockpuppet. Not a muppet. Nor anything else of the kind. Keep ur conspiracy theories to yourself. WTPP 15:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being incivil. I have no relation to Freestylefrappe, whoever they are. Your false claims are incivil and harassive.Uzumaki 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job catching that sockpuppetry. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - I'll do that. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, entirely my intention. - Valarauka(T/C) 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BBC Russian School Sign.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BBC Russian School Sign.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry by User:Mrpainkiller7

If you're referring to what's going on right now with his new sock puppet with which he is impersonating me, thanks. I think I'll need to escalate it though. --Neurophyre^(talk) 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I re-opened the case on the intervention board and filed a sock puppet report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mrpainkiller7. Please feel free to comment on that report. --Neurophyre^(talk) 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Strike-through text

[edit] Mrpainkiller7 sock puppet impersonating you

See User:Jean-Philepe. I've added it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mrpainkiller7 and I suggest we figure out how to open a case for IP ban. --Neurophyre^(talk) 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I requested checkuser and IP ban at [[3]]. --Neurophyre^(talk) 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Read WP policies.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Idleguy 15:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

For archive purpose, this user wholesale reverted my changes to an article using the edit summary "rv. I can see that you are another PETA fan bringing in your emotions rather than Wikipedia policies into editing. Do not blank when everything is properly cited. Do not attempt to gloss the article." to which I've promptly informed him of wikipedia policies concerning personal attack. This was an amusing attempt at retribution :)

• Calling others "silly" is a personal attack. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Idleguy 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)