User talk:Evilphoenix/Archive 04

Saberone

Just let me know how to create the page within my user page, and i'll let the info i have already gathered sit there until the proper verification can be gathered. SaberoneDC 22:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Houlgate

I will give also a nod to You for handling the matter to the end with this new inexperienced user. Thanks. -feydey 21:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Purple Felt

Apologies there, it wasn't intentional -- civil and calm debates are always enjoyable. I thought the Pikachu thing with Boothy was funny, are you going to find any replacements for everyone's favorite electric rodent? Karmafist 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo's RFA

Stevertigo is listed on RFA per order of the ArbCom. This RFA must be allowed to run to completion; do not delist it for any reason whatsoever before the end of its appointed time without the approval of the ArbCom. Kelly Martin 00:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Awesome. I was thinking about that actually, since that one was a special case and mandated by the ArbCom and all that. Cheers, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Meaning, I was asking myself if I hadn't just erred in removing the page, which was confirmed when I saw you had reverted me. Just to clarify. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to be strict here and warn you: it is your duty as an administrator to uphold arbcom descisions at all times. Do not fail to do so. Kim Bruning 00:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I made a mistake, and was rightfully corrected. I fully support the Arbitration Committee. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I hate warning people, so this is a good outcome :-) Kim Bruning 01:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete please

Anal bandit the vandal keeps removing my speedy tag. Borisblue 04:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible deletes

Can you look at Genius business tactic and Eekum. I'm not sure if they are speedy, AfD or legit. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather 05:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying not to get carried away as I know in the past I've been a bit quick to tag stuff as speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 05:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Something problematic

Thank you for your kind offer, on my talk page: feel free to keep letting me know if you find something problematic. Perhaps you might take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Threat, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse of admin powers by Karmafist and related edits? Andy Mabbett 16:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd^(?!?) 17:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Are we ready for the list?

Ready to delete the pics on each page? That is the ones that need deleted? I was wondering where you were? Scott 18:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm here, but I've been busy with some other things this morning. I'll look at that in a little while. Cheers. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've been busy too, but not to busy for you.....

I'll check back and see if we can sync times....

Don't worry, and take your time, at your convenience is not a problem, Thanks Scott 19:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio images

Why did you restore the potentially-copyvio images to Scottfisher's talk page? I understood that such images were to be removed from pages on sight. Andy Mabbett 21:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so, but given the tension between you and him right now, I think it would be better for someone else to do that. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

So you reverted to include bad content, because of who removed it? *boggle*. Andy Mabbett 22:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Additonally, the image is not actually listed on PUI. The linked to information does not include PUI, so if it is located there, feel free to point that out to me. If it's not, why don't you go ahead and list it on PUI then. It looks like it will have to be there for a while before it can be deleted. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Scottfisher lists the image as "Needs deletion". Andy Mabbett 23:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see that it is listed. I'm still a little unsure of the procedure to follow here, so I'm going to contact some other admins. I'm not sure I can just delete them outright. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Strictly, the WP:PUI process lasts 30 days and has two phases to it. At the moment, these images are only a few days into Phase I. However, pending on what you hear from the other admins you've asked, it might be appropriate to shortcut things this time. It seems that those images with any chance of being rescued have already been identified and re-tagged, or delisted altogether. Those that are left are now known to be basically newbie mistakes, and are all orphans. Since they were mistakes and the original uploader has said so, from a policy perspective I'd think CSD G7 "Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake" might apply. From a more adminny point-of-view, the closure offered by simply removing the offending images is something that seems to be very much needed in this case: it has caused no small amount of bad-feeling. -Splash^talk 02:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • Evil, Know you are busy, Hey I'm going to have to go through the articles for the pics being deleted on the list, as they will be leaving a frame, Do you know what I mean? So do you think its OK to do that in the next day? Do you understand what I'm saying? Thanks Scott 15:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead and remove pictures from articles, go ahead. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

blocked

Thanks for blocking the user who cleared Muhammad. I was anticipating needing to chase them for a while.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oh yeah! I'm a CVU member myself. Got the old CDVF buzzing away...—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What is this? #wikipedia-en-vandalism —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...I'm not super savvy with this stuff. Is that something that I plug into the CDVF?—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I get a pop-up that says "IRC is not a registered protocol." I'm using mozilla firefox.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Your flamethrower

Here's your +25 flamethrower for your efforts removing vandalism. This one won't wear out anytime soon. ;) Titoxd^(?!?) 05:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sansvoix help

Hi! You offered your assistance on the Holocaust denial talk page, and on mine as well. First, are all my efforts in vein? I'm not getting the vibe from the Holocaust denial crowd that they want to even listen to my ideas regarding legitimising the article.

Secondly, I'm having a problem elsewhere regarding Talk:United States#Request for Comment (see above discussion). I tried to make changes to the economy section (as there was a call put out to improve it from the CIA factbook rip-off it was/is). Unfortunatly, all my additions were being modified out of recognition, and then eventually removed altogeather by two people. And then came the personal attacks! If you have a moment to go over that, and give me some advice, I would be in your debt.

I can't stress enough how much I appreciate your offer to help, I was considering giving up on Wikipedia out of frustration! Thanks again, --Sansvoix 05:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC) PS Feel free to reply on my talkpage, I promise you it does no longer redirect to Iconoclasm (:

I'll take a look at it and see what I can do. However, it will take me a little time to familiarize myself with the article and what's going on over there, but I'll be in touch. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 11:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! If you have any suggestions regarding the Talk:United States#Request for Comment (see above discussion) That would be great as well. I really think that my addition there had merit. And the two guys who stonewalled it are already celebrating!. I understand if you don't have time though.--sansvøix 07:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Why delete Malevolent Alien Abduction Article ?

Why does the article "Malevolent Alien Abduction Research" article need deletion ?

Can you imagine going home from work, suddenly you spot a bizarre light, only that it is NOT a known object, then as you get closer to it, you and your conveyance is hit by a, what the Star Trek calls a "tractor beam", taking you and your vehicle into a LARGE ship. As you wonder WHAT is going on(putting it politely), 3 3' Grey aliens take you to what appears to be a laboratory. Once there, either a Reptilian alien or a insect-like alien appears, as you are forced to strip off ALL of your clothing, then the aliens brutally examine you, take samples of biological material, if you're a female, implant a creature into you that is 0.5 human, 0.5 something else, later taken in another "abduction". If you're male, they force you to mate with a female creature and/or take sperm samples, all in the most painful manner imaginable, insert a device into your brain that has some suspected functions,some of those suspected to be sinister.Then you're released, often in another location. Later on, you have some physical problems, some nightmares, so you seek help. The shrink who has placed you under hypnosis is so shocked at what you had revealed, tells you that you're mentally ill, because of a little known, alleged directive that was initiated by the government to discourage UFO/Alien reports, after the US got scared during a incident that happened over Washington,DC in 1952. Of course, you cease your attempts at getting "help", and go report what happened to you to a UFO/Alien research center without someone ridiculing,abusing,disrespecting you at all. This imaginative Alien Abduction example was taken from MANY sources, including some UFO sites,UFO related Conspiracy articles in this Wikipedia Encyclopedia,other sources too numerous to mention.

While I was in the SW US, I've heard these reports, then someone would tell me(to be polite), "You see that (expletive)? THAT is WHAT I'm talking about!". While I was in Roswell,NM. some elderly gentleman told me that he WAS there when that thing crashed there and that he was'nt too thrilled about the way he was treated by the military.Can you imagine something like THAT happening to you, then a US Army sergeant tells you NOT to tell anyone about it or that you'll end up dead,worse ?Martial Law 07:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC) :)

It would be nice having a Administrator as a guide. I'm NEW to this format myself. I'm NOT defending this article, its just that some people, like a Wikipedian I had found to be a UFO abductee, need a place to report hostile alien contact, and it is intended to serve as a source of material for some Sci-fi horror and/or fictional war writers.Martial Law 09:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC) :)

Appreciate your honesty, I do NOT see that often.Martial Law 09:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC) :)

Hmm. Nope, can't really imagine that. Why don't you tell me which article specifically youre coming with a question about? Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 11:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Article is Malevolent Alien Abduction Research. If this is NOT authorized by you, then I'm reporting the deletion request AS a possible vandalisation - IF this was NOT authorised by you.History tag has you stating a "afd" on it and a BIG "AFD" on it. In case this article is'nt exactly "exciting","noticable", I've had a UFO Abductee give me a opinion on it. This guy is a Wikipedian (!). Hope I did'nt offend you, just looking for info. to help a sick article get better.Martial Law 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC) :)

Scottfisher

I think there's been some good headway dealing with the Scottfisher copyvio issues. Scott has come up with a list of images that he agrees should be deleted, and both he and Pigsonthewings are asking me to go ahead and delete them. However, I'm not entirely familiar with procedure on PUI and how that relates to the new speedies, so I wanted to ask some other admins familiar with the issue for comment. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you can delete any of the images he's uploaded and he agrees with deleting right away (as long as you agree they should be deleted, but that's the case here of course). As for the rest of them, I think there's still some discussion so it's best to leave them on WP:PUI for the time being. --fvw* 16:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Hey guys with your approval, I want to delete the images related to the pages now.

That way we're good to go on the list. Hope you understand this ? Ex: Each page is related to the picture and I have to delete the hypertext related to the actual file. Good to go on this?

Yea, Nay, Abstentions? "Can you say Yea?

• A step at a time next step*

Then the admin needs to delete the actaul file image and is good to go on the list, But we don't delete the list, instead I'll just strike them out as previos. Just to refresh your memory;

The list ___Scott 17:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• The deleted are ready prep'd for deletion at someone's convenience and POTW continues to delete pictures from articles.
• I'll check back later.... Best Regards_ Scott 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

69.181.186.20

Hi,

I received a message (pasted at the end below) saying that a test or experiment I did was reverted. However, while I have made (attempted) contributions to WP through edits and writing one small entry, I have not made any experiments that I know of. Can you tell me exactly what was reverted? It's possible I injured an article or something by mistake; if so I'd like to know so that I can avoid that in the future.

Thank you, Aaron Maxwell amax@redsymbol.net

Paste of the message I received: User talk:69.181.186.20 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search

 Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test   
 worked, and has been removed or reverted. Please use the 
 sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look 
 at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about  
 contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.Ëvilphoenix 
 Burn! 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, sometimes more than one non-logged in user will end up using the same IP address. Looking at the time of the message and your IP's edit history, I believe that the message is in regards to something that may have been deleted, because I don't see any contributions from that time period from your IP. It is possible that another user created an innappropriate page while using the same IP as you, which was subsequently deleted. Feel free to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, we would welcome your assistance. May I also encourage you to consider signing up for a user account? That allows us to be more certain about who has made a given edit, and also makes communication with other editors on Wikipedia much easier. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge article ?

Can the article Malevolent Alien Abduction Research be merged ?Martial Law 07:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC) :)

Propose it on the AfD page. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 07:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Will do. What do Administrators do ? Hope this is'nt a idiotic question.Martial Law 20:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC) :)

Too much, really. See: Wikipedia:Administrators. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is the Afd page ?Martial Law 20:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC) :)

follow the link on the notice on the article. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed vandalism

Why do you accuse me of being a vandal when I fixed the mess created by a real one?

Whoops. My bad. Thanks for letting me know, and keep up the good work. Sorry about that! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara talk

I thank you for your vigilance, I saw vandalism in WP pages, but I really don't understand vandalism in talk pages. Really odd. Cheers. Daryou 21:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Bushytails

Didn't blank the page or at least not deliberately,; already restored. I've seem to have run up[ against a software bug which "eats" half a page; that makes twice now, on two different systems even. --Martin Wisse 21:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV

Thanks for your interest in WP:RFA/SV. I have responded to your latest comment/change of vote there. Regards, St|eve 00:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

India

Heh. And I was just about to delete the thugi article just because it sucked and was orphaned. And that was a pretty crazy catch of my redirect typo.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.224.129 (talk • contribs) 04:15, October 29, 2005

You can't actually delete an article, only Administrators can do that. If you remove all the text of an article, we still have the article, and will actually generally revert back from such page blankings. If you think an article should be deleted you're more than welcome to submit it to Articles for Deletion. And as far as the catch goes, well, we watch closely. Why not go ahead and sign up for a user account? Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: {{anon}}

Hehe! Success! The anon's message on your talk page is what prompted me to do it. I saw it on my watchlist. :o Acetic'^Acid 04:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Supreme Commander

I didn't know why you reverted my edits, since the talk page complained about the page having trouble with people finding the article. Also the disambiguation was useless since nothing on military ranks or commander-in-chief links there. I was only trying to help and you treated me like if I was a vandal.

Please use edit summaries in your edits. If you don't say that you are doing something per discussion, I have no reason to believe that you are. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

So am I allowed to edit the page again if I use use the summaries?

Could you do me a favor and link me to the discussion first, and let me look at it? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Here it is: Talk:Supreme Commander (game)

No, the discussion above it reached a consensus to make Supreme Commander a disambiguation page, which is perfectly acceptable and well within standard Wikipedia practice. Please don't adjust the re-directs or move the pages around. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: costume

Hermione Granger, of course. :-) Hermione1980 12:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by TJive

Hello, TJive has repeatedly deleting off sections of articles he don't agree with without consensus. [1][2][3]. Several months ago he has been warned by Rama, and he's back doing it again —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatCheng (talk • contribs) 05:58, November 1, 2005

I'll take a look, but I'm not very active right now. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a note...

...to let you know that when my RfA was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FireFox, your vote was lost. So incase you hadn't noticed, just a note to tell you. FireFox

You are still yet to revote. You have until Monday. We're hoping for a position in the top 5! --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA for Johntex

Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. The one button rollback feature is very useful, and I've already been able to close a couple of deletions. I look forward to seeing you around our articles of common interest! Best, Johntex\^talk 00:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Scottfisher, again

I put this on User talk:Scottfisher, but he deleted it without comment:

Images of uncertain provenance

User:Evilphoenix told you: Do not upload any images until the issues with your current issues have been addressed, or you will be re-blocked. Do not add any links to images in articles, even if not uploaded, or you will be re-blocked. (my emphasis); yet you continue to revert the removal of "possible-copyvio"-flagged images from articles (e.g. [4]). You may choose, as is your habit, to delete this comment from your talk page, but you should be aware that that will be seen as both an indication that you have seen the comment, and, if you continue to repeat such behaviour, that you are doing so wilfully and in full knowledge of the potential consequences. It's your call. Andy Mabbett 09:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett 13:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

I'm sorry you found reason to object to my adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future.  ALKIVAR™ 07:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RfA

I know I've been slow in saying this, but thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was an honor to be both nominated and approved as an admin. If there is ever any adminish (is that a word :-) things you need help with, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 16:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deltion - copyright violations

Hey. criteria for speedy deletion A8 states "[m]aterial is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service) and;". Article Negawatt did not meet that. That's why saying "I see no assertion that the site makes money from that content" was relevant. The site was a non-commercial site, so db-copyvio shouldn't be used for such cases. There are little things like that in speedy deletion criteria which make it more more complex. gren グレン 04:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey again, I saw you deleted and then undeleted it... just be careful when you undelete... you only restored your edits which made the page history one item... you want to restore it with all legitimate items... which, since you were the first deletion, is everything. Just check all of the applicable boxes on undelete. gren グレン 08:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Winter Soldier?

No part of the talk page has been deleted, so I suppose you could search its history. Or because of this, ask User:Duk. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I really don't know what the issue (or the article) is about and was merely bringing it to the proper parties' attention. Radiant_>|< 13:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Return of Scottfisher?

Please see [5] and [6]. Andy Mabbett 15:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Also User:160.91.172.45 who has, oddly, just reverted my last edit to Jeremy Clarkson and removed my coment from Talk:Jeremy Clarkson. Andy Mabbett 15:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Now making empty edits ([7], [8]) to pages I've recently edited (both IP addresses are registered to 'Oak Ridge National Laboratory'). Andy Mabbett 16:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In the future, you can bring up potential Scottfisher socks to The Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. I agree that the first IP is most likely Scottfisher, but I'm not as convinced on the second one. I blocked the first one and noted it on AN/I. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see how the second one does not convince you - same IP block, registered to the same organisation, used sequentially, and within minutes of the first, for those speciifc edits... Andy Mabbett 09:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fix your sig

It goes 'sup' 'small' then '/sup' '/small', and the latter two tags should be reversed so that they nest properly. Thanks. Radiant_>|< 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

POV dispute/repeated reverts?

I stumbled across your user page and was wondering if you could look at the Lambda Phi Epsilon page. I've been involved in somewhat of a revert war with a few other guys and am not totally sure how to bring attention to the matter. Someone marked it as a POV disputed page, so maybe someone else will take care of it? Thanks for any help/advice.

--Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iheartwiki19 (talk • contribs) 11:49, November 18, 2005

I'll take a look at it and keep my eye on it. Also, in the future, please sign posts to Talk pages. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how to contact you subtly, need to ask you something private. Contact me privately if Wikipedia allows it, please. - Iheartwiki19 03:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your signing your comment. You may use the "email this user" function on my User or Talk page to send me an e-mail, and as I see you have e-mail enabled, I will reply with that. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rfar

That's understandable, at least in this case. In cases that aren't contreversial such as that one though, i'm likely to ignore that unwritten rule in deference to Be Bold. This entire process with the rfar has disgusted me. POTW continues his nonsense and intimidation tactics, and yet i'm considered the villain here for being "too tough" on him. Karmafist 15:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's more than a one sided issue, in my opinion. There's several issues at play. Normally I try to stay away from RfAr, but this one I am looking at more closely. My impression is that the evidence you presented doesn't really fairly represent whats been happening, but I'm still sorting through it all and trying to get a better understanding of the situation on my own before attempting to make any interpretations. As far as the deletion of your own user page, I'm pretty sure it is actually stated somewhere, though I'm not sure precisely where at the moment. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:GRFA dispute

I've set the ball rolling for a WP:RFC survey to start, discussion is on the GRFA talk page. Please comment. Borisblue 04:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Scottfisher sockpuppet

It's my understanding that, per policy, edits by sockpuppets of blocked users are to be reverted, on sight. So why did you revert my reversion of Scottfisher's last edit? Andy Mabbett 22:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Because it's on his own user page, not to an article. And it was just correcting a typo, but it was a bad choice on his part, as that IP is now blocked because of it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The rule is Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.; but that applies to banned, not blocked, users. I didn't realise the difference. My appologies. Andy Mabbett 23:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for explaining reverts to me, I promise to always use them wisely. Becksy 13:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute advice

Hello - I've seen you around a bit (especially on Harry Potter pages) and would like your opinion, seeing as how you are a member of the Meidiation Cabal. I'm having problems with a new (I presume) user over the content of List of villains. In a nutshell, they want to make large changes, while I would prefer to discuss things first. I'm objecting not only to the content of their changes, but their method as well. I've tried talking on the article talk page, and on their talk page as well (here's their latest response to that: [9])

I'll spare you further details, and this is obviously only presenting my side of things :), but I'm not sure of the next step. I'd go to Third Opinion, but there is at least one other person involved (hence, the message about "2 people" on my talk page). Just wondering what you recommend: Request for Comment? Mediation? Mediation Cabal? Not sure how formal I should make this, but I'd like to get it resolved, as it is taking a lot of my time right now which I don't really have, but I hate to see the List of villains article in such a state as the other user keeps changing it to. Thanks much. - Turnstep 02:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Turnstephy, you magnificent Mussolini of the kind of literated, 3 words:

                                           IN 
                                          YOUR
                                          FACE
                                           !! 

yours: --T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 07:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC) ps: Evilphoenix: if you are a woman, and especially if you luke like your x-men namesake... Would you marry me?!!

My good friend T-man, if I am deciphering your text accurately, you are both taunting Turnstep and flirting with me. First, please refrain from personal attacks. Turnstep came to me with a legitimate request for assistance, and just because I happen to agree with your viewpoint on one article does not give you the right to mock Turnstep. Please do not engage in such action again. Second, I hate to be a dissapointment, but A. I am a guy and B. my Wiki-heart belongs to another and C. I do not resemble Phoenix. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing

Tell you what, i'll ask for you from now on then. After asking on IRC for blocks about a billion times in the past few weeks and waiting for the Arbcom to do something after weeks of his constant disruption, bad faith and edit warring, something had to be done about him once and for all. Karmafist 02:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks man, whenever I see his words now, I see Leonig Mig, afraid to edit due to Pigs, and I think of the thousands of people he must have turned off to Wikipedia by his actions. I know I have a temper, but I can't hold it in when I see him hurting this project I love so much by intimidating others. I'd more than gladly give up my adminship to make him feel the way Leonig Mig felt if that's what was needed in order to stop him from doing such a thing again. Karmafist 03:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Leonig's back, but under another name he keeps secret for fear from retribution from Pigs. And considering he has around 20,000 edits, and he gets into several edit wars a week, i'd say thousands is a fair estimate. He had a revert war going for almost a year at Birmingham. Karmafist 04:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

'Anime' Term

Thanks for the support! Thanks a lot!!!

But i'd like to addres an issue in which i know my opinion its not the most popular but id like to discuss it with you and whoever is interested. Maybe, we should later continue this conversation on the list of villains page, but im writing here first because since u are the first to correct this and i kind of expected this to happen, id like to get your atention first... the anime change u made.. i know thats the popular term, but i dont like it because of this reason:

• im totally against that kind of languaje degeneration...(i notice the irony of it comming from me) i like to write with abreviatures and stuff, because it is unavoidable the fact that it will keep happening and as long as it doesn't happen in published stuff and media i suppose its kinda ok... but to add to the languaje every single foreign word to describe something that English languaje already has a word for is kinda pretentiuos, snoby and pompous. Salsa is sauce, siesta is nap, sombrero is hat (if by that you mean the big mexican ones, the proper term would be charro hat) in spanish; as well as anime is animation in japanese.. no wait thats wrong!! japanese people are doing with english words what americans do with every other language words. you wouldn call "taiburu" a table just because its made in japan! tabure and anime are japanese mispronunciation of table and animation! to japanese people the simpsons or batman are animation just as well as dragonball. besides if english speakers pronunce anime, and all the other japanise words they use isntead of just translating them, as good as they pronunce sombrero, salsa, or siesta; belive me they feel embarased and ofended rather than flattered. By the way, MEXICO its pronnounced mehicoh not megsico!!! the x sound like the h in him, and the o like the a in walk, tall or talk! English is already the largest language of the world, we get it, please stop steeling other languajes words.
• itd be useful to distinguish when an 'anime' is american or japanese.
• i swear i got other point but i forgot while writing the first.

Please help me and ask for help to put all the tittles from the long list at the bottom of the list of villains, in the right categories. --T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 07:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

T-man, thanks for your comment. I'd encourage you to use the Talk page of the article itself for content questions about the article, I will be monitoring the Talk page as well, so I'll see anything that you post there. As far as the use of "anime", I know that English is not your primary language, so let me explain (and I don't intend to sound obnoxious, if I do I apologise) that in English, "Anime" refers specifically to Japanese style animation. While the Japanese language and people may or may not draw a distinction between Japanese and American animation styles, in English there is a distinction. Likewise, your other examples: Salsa is a type of sauce, Siesta is a type of nap, and sombrero is a type of hat. In each of these, the word in question is a more specific word, where the words you would substitute are more general words. In general, it is better in English to be as specific as possible, and to say "salsa" is to refer to a specific type of sauce, whereas "sauce" is much more general and vague. As a native English speaker, I assure you that "Anime" is the best term to refer to the Japanese animation style "Anime" is almost never used to refer to any American animation, as American animation simply isnt drawn in the style of anime, nor do the stories have the characteristics of Japanese culture that seperates Anime from American animation. As far as English stealing words, words have been trading themselves among languages for as long as mankind has used them to communicate. It's simply part of language. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Christian Exodus link on South Carolina page

The reason I deleted the Christian Exodus link on the South Carolina page is not because I fail to recognize that it is a "real organization," but because that website has no formal or official connection to the state of South Carolina or South Carolina government. If we can simply list the links organizations or institutions that have any type of association with South Carolina, where will it end? The organization is not representative of the entire state of South Carolina or its people, so I do not think it should be listed under "external links."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhenaton06 (talk • contribs) 05:06, November 27, 2005

Ok. Let's take the discussion to the Talk page of the article itself then. Also, you can sign your posts to Talk pages by typing for tildes after your post, like so: ~~~~ Thanks! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

South Carolina

I can't imagine why you feel it is important to keep the christianexodus.org link on the South Carolina page. I have removed it again, as per the reasoning on the Talk page. Please don't replace the link without responding to that post. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 14:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the tone-- it was unintentional. It seemed that you were demanding an explanation from a newbie without bothering to offer your rationale for keeping the link. Onward. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Leonig Mig

To explain what Pigsonthewing is talking about -> [10]. Leonig Mig hasn't left. Ergo, Pigsonthewing did not drive him away. As to posting this in the arbitration... that difflink is FROM the arbitration evidence page. --CBD ✉ 22:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You're parsing it wrong then: POTW drove Leonig Mig from his original account, and Leonig Mig now edits under a new name that nobody knows of (at least, POTW doesn't know it and neither do I). What this also likely means is that he's had to avoid conversing with friends he made while editing as Leonig Mig, as well as avoid editing articles he worked on while contributing as Leonig Mig. That's just as bad, if not worse, than being driven from Wikipedia altogether. And you can see what happens when POTW figures out you're using a sockpuppet, just look at the Scottfisher situation. Now he tracks down any IP Scott participates from and tries to revert all their edits and/or report the IP on WP:AN/I. Whatever karmafist has done to him, the old adage "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here in spades. —Locke Cole 00:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew that, but I didn't feel like announcing that to Pigsonthewing on his Talk page. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)