User talk:UKPhoenix79

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

  • I'm always willing to help others. So if you need some assistance please let me know and I will do my best.
  • If I have offended you in any way please believe me it was not my intent and let me know of the situation so that we can get it sorted out.
  • I prefer complete conversations:
    • I will reply to comments/questions on this page. After you leave a message, you may wish to watch this page for a reply.
    • If you would rather that I reply on your talk page please let me know.
    • If I left a personal message on your talk page, Unless I specifically state otherwise, I will be watching it for a while so feel free to reply there or here.


Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1 (2005 June 29) to (2006 July 16)
  2. /Archive 2 (2006 July 16) to (2006 October 16)

Contents


[edit] Wikipedia User Page

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UKPhoenix79.

[edit] Re: Bose headphones

The article looks good. I just don't know why these "Bose-bashers" want to have a piece of the article. While I liked the way you refined the article a lot, there are only two minor things I want to discuss about:

  • Bose Aviation: The "Upgrade Program" can be left out without vandalizing the article (but I'm not going to make edits as of this time unless it's to clean-up vandalism), but that's only from my personal standpoint. Literally an article should talk about "things in general". "Upgrade Program" is somewhat an advertisement so I personally would ditch "Upgrade Program", but that's completely up to you.
  • Bose and American Airlines: I would condense the American Airlines section and the QuietComfort (various) sections. I'm not going to edit this right now (like I said before), but I'm considering condensing both Bose QuietComfort and American Airlines so that it would sond more condense and concise. Again, this is from a personal standpoint.

Otherwise, I really liked the new collapse coding you did on the article. However, the QuietComfort 3 Headphones is still my recommended Bose Headphones. I tried out the Bose IE "Earbuds" and they sound OK, but they don't cancel out sound—you won't be able to demo out the IE due to sanitary reasons.

I'm just recommending what to do right now, but as of this time, I'm not going to make any radical edits. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me why they act the way they do. All I have done is try to make this a great article just like everything should be on wikipedia. I think you have a good idea about putting the American Airlines in the QC section. I don't think it would be vandalizing the page by removing the upgrade program. I would only think it might interust people who have them that is all. Maybe editing it might be better?
I have actually managed to try out the IE's at a Bose store. They let me try out a pair (they clean them after each use). Here is how I rank the new triports 1.OE 2.IE 3.AE Personally I'm not fond of in ear headphones but they really did sound great and were more comfortable than I expected. They also said that since there are 3 fittings if someone has a pair and it sounds like it has too much bass they need to use a smaller size to give it a more natural sound. You should go back and see what you think.
Personally I do like my QC's more and I did notice the lack of noise canceling tech on the IE's. I'm sure that Bose will come out with the QC4's later that will be in-ear noise cancelling headphones. That way they will have 3 standard versions (OE, AE & IE) and 3 noise cancelling versions (OE, AR & IE). If I was to guess it would come out next year and be $50 less than the QC2's so $249 (there is a $30 difference between the triports and a $50 difference with the QC's). I wonder how they will sound? Chat to you later -- UKPhoenix79 06:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amg

Hi UKPhoenix79, (any relation with Dumbledore's Phoenix by the way?) Thanks for your support on amg and for your subtle changes that still make it visible when existing in infoboxes. I hope some more support will turn up soon or we'll have to forget it. Hoverfish 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No relation it is just my fave mythical creature. I don't quite understand what you mean by "subtle changes" but I know its a complement so your welcome. Well as many people have pointed out to me before, voting in wikipedia looks for consensus and right now there is none. So if it stays that way the link will remain. If it ever comes down to this, I see no problem in it being a hidden feature, another option for people that can decide to use it or not. Any way since a lot of info boxes use this property I see no reason to loose an option that other users seam to like. -- UKPhoenix79 22:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There was already a discussion, that was a lot like a straw poll. Since AMG did not win, it is no longer in the infobox. It was a way of coming to a conlusion. It technically stands because as I saw in the these discussions, it was added without discssion. Therefore, we were voting whether or not to include it, not whether or not to remove it (for the first time). I will revert it back if you do not comment by 3 November 2006 0:00. Please help me understand why you removed it. (not that I don't expect you to, I'm just in the mood to set deadlines) Cbrown1023 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you added it without discussion. Cbrown1023 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It was an early edit of mine. There was a conversation that I assume you saw after its addition. AMG was seen as a good alternative to IMDb especially for older movies where IMDb does not always have good info. Also because it is written by professionals and not by amatures using both can be useful to balance out the infobox links and to remove the appearance of a bias towards one website over another. AMG has now been included in the infobox for most of a year and a straw poll would be about the removal of this option since it has been incorporated successfully into many articles now. Personally I see no problem as this being an option (hidden or otherwise) for articles to use, it in no way needs to be (or should be) a mandatory selection.
I must say thank you for contacting me, not reverting, only trying to find out the reasons behind my decision. I should have done it as well. It is interusting to find a person so into deadlines :) -- UKPhoenix79 01:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed. I just thought that it didn't need a response. But thank you for informing me just in case. :-) (lol... mine has a long face...) Cbrown1023 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
hehehe ok I just want sure. ("\(.:...:.)/") Monster with claws. "RAWR!!!" -- UKPhoenix79 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, since there was a vote about the issue, claiming that it was seen as a good alternative isn't really true. Most people don't see it that way, and you personally seeing no problem with it being an option makes no difference (any more than anyone else's opinion, which were already voiced at the discussion). On the other hand, there was never a discussion on adding it to the infobox, more people want it gone than want it to stay, and therefore, it goes. - Bobet 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
There was a discussion about it when it was 1st added and the point I made about it being a good alternative came from that discussion. Your or my own personal positions also has no baring on the issue since if you check the vote there was no conensus. Since this has been included in the infobox for almost a year the poll is and was about the removal of such items. The removal of this would change many articles. Thus it is important to make sure that there is a consensus on removing something that has been included for such a long time. The poll was not decisive as such it is clear that the item is to remain. I hope that you will feel free to contact me on this issue, but at the moment the decision is pretty clear when it comes to such polls inside of wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, several members did vote for it to stay and did give their reasons. Since everyone agrees to keep at least imdb in the infobox, the original intention of excluding all other but the official site has been compromised. And so we remain with the issue of prefering one film database over another for whatever reasons each one may have. I think even if UKPhoenix79 hadn't done it someone else who would have seen all his links not showing, would have done it. Hoverfish 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yea at least that one is out of the way for now :) -- UKPhoenix79 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that I'd point out a few things about polls to help clarify any confusion [I hope you guys dont mind :) ]

I hope these help -- UKPhoenix79 00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research policy

Regarding your edit [1] to the V for Vendetta (film) article, please see the no original research policy for our policy on adding your own original ideas to articles. -- The Anome 23:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is actually not original research heck its not even done by me. But it is well sourced using internal wikipedia links and I have now added external references to help with info not found inside of wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 10:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Phoenix, I stood up for you last night and actually found that the information was their when it became an FA, as I stated on his talk page. Cbrown1023 14:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow thank you very much :) I hope I wont get too much flack for defending other peoples work. Can you put your quote on the main talk page? -- UKPhoenix79 20:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And edit summaries...

This edit summary seems totally wrong. It could be a botched revert (eg, too far back into the revision history), except that the previous edit was left unmarred, and the only visible change was reintroducing the disputed paragraph. I have no opinion on the matter itself, but I would like some clarification of your intended meaning in the edit summary. NB - this is a dynamic IP, so replying on that talkpage will likely be a waste of time; here or on Talk:V for Vendetta would probably be best. --88.111.156.100 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

He was referring to an ongoing discussion that only matters to the interested parties. If you are interested, see directly above this post. Cbrown1023 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Phoenix

Hi Phoenix. (Just read your message on my talk now.) Thanks for the welcome back, though I won't be here for long though, just for Bonfire Night and maybe a week after. I'll be available to resolve the V5 issue though. It's a legitimate theme, and I don't think we have to reference every single statement there. Talk to you later.--P-Chan 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm so happy to hear from you again. I'm sorry it cannot be for long, it is ashame to loose such a good editor like yourself. Yet it is understandable. Real life must always take precedence. You should feel proud that your article has made it so far! I also agree that the V/5 theme should remain since it is an intergral part of the movie. I can only assume that those pondering its worth have never seen the movie. Though I am not that fond of the bulleted look that it has now taken on, but if that is the concensus I have no real issue. Enjoy what remains of the 5th and i hope to see you around for a bit before you leave again :) Cheers Mate -- UKPhoenix79 07:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V for Vendetta

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please take my changes seriously. See the discussion on Talk:V for Vendetta. Please assume good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.250.66 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

I always assume good faith, but if you check the talk page you will also see that there is a heated debate about keeping The letter V and the number 5 and putting that section in list format has already been decided as something that a FA should never have. This discussion is throughout the article but most of the discussion is found here I am going to revert that section back to the previously agreed style and I hope that you will use the talk page to convince others on the merrit of a list if you wish to have it done that way :-) ok never mind other users have already changed it for me -- UKPhoenix79 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I cannot see anything on list vs. non-list in that section. Please help me out if I overlooked it.
I can see the point to remove this section (though I disagree); my change is not about that. --217.235.250.66 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure lists are discussed in Talk:V for Vendetta (film)#Trivia, Talk:V for Vendetta (film)#Removal of Trivia section, Talk:V for Vendetta (film)#The letter V and the number 5 & Talk:V for Vendetta (film)#Differences between the film and graphic novel All I did was use a key word search of "List" to find all of these.
Most people seem to agree with this statement A bulleted list of "trivia" is not "Brilliant Prose", which we expect from a featured article. If you would like to change this start a topic on List vs Prose and try to get concensus from other users. The user you would want to start with would be P-Chan who essentially wrote this article and turned it into a FA. -- UKPhoenix79 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I couldn't find anything about lists in the section you named before, sorry. I'm actively participating in Talk:V for Vendetta (film)#Differences between the film and graphic novel, and so should you.
(We should really discuss this on the article's /Talk.) A paragraph consisting of sentences without coherence is neither, and it's confusing too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.250.66 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
Then please edit it to read well and be coherent and unconfusing. That, unlike some of your other edits, will be constructive and helpful. It will also give me more "good faith" in your contributions. Cbrown1023 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I cannot edit this into something coherent because it's a list. --217.235.250.66
This user is getting a little too disruptive (see my talk page as well), it may be time to notify WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Cbrown1023 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I try to avoid that and I hope it dosen't come to that. Lets see if the user will respond to the above & try to work with the rest of us :-) -- UKPhoenix79 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've posted, I normally try to avoid it as well (this is only my second) but he is really disrupting the page. At least badlydrawn was civil and had a valid point! Cbrown1023 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have actually worked with badlydrawn before and he is a determined editor and really keeps you on your toes. I may not always agree with him but I admire him for his convictions. This user for some reason "knows" that he is right and does not want other users to question those edits. This user can be a real asset to wikipedia if he was to try to help the rest of us and use the talk pages before any editing. Yet he is very willing to brake 3RR I can only hope that he stopes before he is blocked. -- UKPhoenix79 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
(sigh) The discussion is ongoing. Yes, I'm conviced I'm right, you can call this "know" if you want. I want other editor to question my convistions, but I don't want other users to revert blindly around and destroy content. (Not to speak of waiting for the discussion.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.250.66 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
I have no problems in adding new ideas to this page and love it when people bring new ideas to the table. But can you agree not to make any edits to the page until 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)? That does NOT include the talk page and I would encourage you to make a new section dedicated to your ideas on improving the article. Thank you so much for not forcing me to report the 3RR violation. I have never ever wanted to do that since I believe most peoples edits are honest ones only trying to improve the article...... Oh why did you just revert again? I'm sorry for this :-( -- UKPhoenix79 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that: "please work with us" was funny. I'm trying to improve the article here, you (collectively) are reverting while destorying data. Assume good faith and contribute to the fracking discussion!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.250.66 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

lol... fracking... that's a word they use on battlestar galactica. please try to remain civil, made up curse words aren't appreciated either; they have the same effect as real ones (only a little comical sometimes). Cbrown1023 23:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont know if you have noticed but other editors are not liking the edits. If you are unwiling to work with other users I do not know what to say. It is obvious that you are an established user not loggin in from your use of wiki code. So please realize that there are reasons that you are being reverted and yes dont only "work with us" but everyone editing the page & use the talk page to generate new ideas and allow us all to make this a better article -- UKPhoenix79 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
How many times do I have to remind you that I already participate? I even started the discussion. (Leaving out stronger language in the last sentence took some willpower.)
I'm stepping away from that article for a while, Phoenix. If anything big happens, can you notify me on my talk page? I'm going to remove it from my watchlist. Cbrown1023 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Also, this is not a joke. You deleted my contributions, all the while demanding constructive work form me. How does that make sense?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.250.66 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

Incase you did not notice Cbrown1023 did find that you had contributed some work and reverted only the changes you made to The letter V and the number 5 from prose to list format here you then reverted everything back to the version you saw fit. This does not show constructive work with other users. I then even got to the point of begging you not to revert since that would have been your 6th time. Only for you to say that I made your life miserable when as this page shows I even complimented you saying This user can be a real asset to wikipedia if he was to try to help the rest of us and use the talk pages before any editing and even bent over backwards to try to help you with the way things are done, giving you more leniency then most people do. Please realise that many people use wikipedia so not all of us agree, that is why we use the talk pages to get some concensus on different ideas -- UKPhoenix79 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It's okay, I know he meant kinda well... we just have to realize that some users views of what is right is different from ours and most of the Wikipedia community: his feelings that lists look better than prose, that he can revert as many times as he wishes (I stepped back because I violated 3RR and didn't want to do it again.), and other things... it's okay though. I'm just glad it is over. :) Cbrown1023 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the times that I wish we had an opened and closed parenthatical together [( and )], so that I can make a happy and sad smiley...... :)(, that doesn't work........ :$? :%?Cbrown1023 01:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is sad... :'( (that makes a crying smiley on AIM)... I like your attempt though, it is very Picasso-like; you gave me an idea... :| it looks stoic-y. Cbrown1023 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bring the issue up again, but I feel bad; just look at his talk page... it seems like we are all attacking him... :( (this is of course not implying that he is a man, it is just that it is easier to type in the masculine pronoun...) Cbrown1023 02:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at all of above I feel fine since I did everything possable to help this user. This user was not a vandal only passionate about his changes, only to a fault. All I can ever do is try to be polite and to help other users correct mistakes. Unfortuantly I cannot force them to listen. His last edit was completely unessacary and done on purpose knowing about its consequences. Frankly I do hope that he will work with us in the future. I only hope next time he'll help us make a better article and avoid edit wars. -- UKPhoenix79 02:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that you weren't right, it is just that it kinda makes me feel bad when you see all those users warning him... but he was not listening and being disruptive... Cbrown1023 03:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about creating pictures with out keyboard characters and I remembered my AIM away message right now:
 :¦:-          -:¦:- []_____   -:¦:-  
      ¸...¸      __/             \/\____  
   ,·´º  o `·,/__/  _/\_   //____/\  
    ```)¨(´´´ |   |  | | |  | | || |l±±±±,,,, 
      ,.-·²°´   ¸,.-·~·~·-.,¸.´

Around the house

I like it... :-) Cbrown1023 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats cool though I can see a nicely created tree, I think that the house is a bit garbled. Is it supposed to look like that? -- UKPhoenix79 02:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No really, it's the Wikipedia font, for it so show correctly, you need it in Times. Wikipedia doesn't show them properly........ it is sad :(. Cbrown1023 03:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Here I think this helps :-) -- UKPhoenix79 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yay! I tried that, but it would not show. I'm impressed and happy. :) Cbrown1023 21:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make edits like this -- I personally don't care, but the altering of other editor's signed comments upsets many people. If you want someone to strike an objection during an FA discussion, ask them to do it themselves. Jkelly 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if that upset you since that was not my intent. I thought that it was a standard procedure when objections were removed. -- UKPhoenix79 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V for Vendetta (film)

I've reinstated the nom to WP:FAR pending consensus, and left a note for Joelr31 (talk • contribs) here, so that the nom can be closed properly with a record of concerns addressed and consensus. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also left a note for Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) to indicate on the FAR if his concerns have been addressed, so that the FAR can be closed if other reviewers concur/endorse. Sandy (Talk) 14:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/k/p/User_talk%7EUKPhoenix79_34ac.html"