User talk:Evilphoenix/Archive 03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Congratulations!

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | Talk 07:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

You may want to be more conservative in your use of the rollback link. From what I can see at Wikipedia:Revert, it's intended for vandalism, not general editing disagreements. When I saw the edit summary on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (prior speculation) I first worried that I'd accidentally done some vandalism or something. I have no problem at all with you making it an article again instead of a redirect, I just wish you hadn't used the rollback button to do it. It's certainly not a big deal or anything, I just wanted to mention it though. Friday (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized it when I hit the button and tried to stop the window, and went back and edited it manually so as not to use to roll-back, but I got distracted and forgot to make sure in the edit history. Definitely didn't mean to roll-back you, sorry bout that. Keep up the good work! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
No problem at all, thanks for being understanding. Everybody hits wrong buttons sometimes, no harm done. Friday (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shramana

Howdy! Just an FYI, the Shramana article did not exist at the time I nominated the redirect for speedy deletion. The author appears to have made the redirect first, then wrote the article. Cheers, CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It's quite possible that that's exactly what happened. :-). Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodwind instrument category

Hi. Noticed you took down the {{delete}} tag from Category:Wind instruments. Why? I created that category today, but by mistake, because I disn't notice Category:Wind instruments proper before, which has the same function. I did happen to categorize some pages into it and left 3 hanging, I've also removed them now. Is there any reason to leave this category now? Karol 19:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] talk pages

I thought that if a talk page has no decent history (ie, vandalism), it should be deleted rather than kept as blank. I'm sorry if I'm wrong but many admins do delete such pages. --Celestianpower hablamé 20:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't say, it's my first day on the job. You're welcome to ask another admin for their opinion, lemme know if they agree. Cheers! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Koolio - well done on getting through RfA by the way and I'll tell you what they say. --Celestianpower hablamé 11:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats on adminship

A bit belated but well done. Dlyons493 Talk 23:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Not belated at all, and thank you. I appreciate your support. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:WYPX

Thanks, i'll take a look. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HP Wiki

Well, if I can count, I have 377 edits. Thank you for your vote of confidence! Hermione1980 12:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Paek

Are we now publishing articles in Korean? I thought this was the english language version of WP.—Gaff talk 05:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a redirect in Korean characters to an English language article with an English language title. It may not be terrible useful, but it's not vandalism. I should have mentioned, however, that should you still feel the redirect is inappropriate, that you could take it to Redirects for deletion instead, as it does not really fit CSD criteria. Personally I think it's ok, and redirects are cheap anyway, but it's up to you. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Aquino

The article is Danny Aquino. The person that posted the remark on my talk page has blanked the entire discussion on the AfD site. The article is not so much a flagrant personal attack as just damaging gossip to a young, although clearly foolish kid. I do not think that WP considers dissemination of this kind of information to be part of its mission. About the articles on REAL Ultimate Power and Brian Peppers, I do not find them very informative or helpful either, but am not going to make it my job to go after them. —Gaff talk 06:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: USS Edmonds and criteria for speedy deletion

Evilphoenix- I did look at the listed criteria for speedy deletion and that ship article didn't really fit any of them. In hindsight I suppose I could have slipped it in under "patent nonsense". Ah well, live and learn. Reyk 07:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: my status page

I really don't know how my composition project went, since I haven't gotten the grade back yet. I'm fairly confident I did pretty well. At least I actually finished it before the day it was due (unlike one of my classmates who had to do half of it that morning...!). I'm almost definitely going to do an accounting major, but I may double-major with music or music education. I'm at least doing a music minor.

"Started out" being music ed? What did you change to? Hermione1980 22:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A8

Believe me, I never hesitate to speedy things, when I think it's at all appropriate. I forget what the deal with those were, but either I wasn't aware they were copyvios or I wasn't aware of A8 (I stumbled upon it recently; somehow I missed whatever debates surrounded it. A damn good rule though). Speaking of speedies, I'm in the middle of a delete-a-thon over at CAT:CSD. I think there's a backlog of over 200 articles there. I could use some help with them, if you'd care to join in. It's slow going and there really aren't enough admins tackling them. no pressure, but it'd certainly be appreciated. Thanks. -R. fiend 03:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What I want to know is how anyone ever got by without A7. That's the majority of my speedy deletes, and I do hundreds at a time. Imagine listing them all on VfD. I'm sure I'd delete them anyway, but I'd be a bit surprised if breaking the rule slike that had been very widespread, -R. fiend 03:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinetite

Would you mind if I reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinetite and relisted it on today's AFD page to get further comment? Looks like there's only three votes and a majority to delete, but it simply didn't get enough attention. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, responded on your talk. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptia BPM Server

Hi, Yes, I think that new speedy is good. Didn't use it in this case for fear of messing something up in the Afd, but now you've reassured me I'll do that in future. Thanks, Dlyons493 Talk 15:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Good show

Can I just say I thought this was perfectly gentlemanly (or perhaps ladylike), and I'd like to thank you for it. Regards encephalon 23:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, personally I would vote for gentlemanly. And thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hermione1980's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teleboards

Is there a specific tag for articles consisting only of an external link, or should I just have used the generic {{delete}} tag? Ben D. 01:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Should I have tagged it {{db|A3}}? Ben D. 01:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Neck and Neck

G1, A1, A4 ... I suppose it doesn't matter as long as it got speedied. :) --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 15:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trumpet!

BTW, congrats on your adminship! I really need to patrol that nomination page more. Would've voted for you in a heartbeat.

As for trumpet, yup. Been playing since I was 11 and I lettered in band in high school. Kept it up afterwards, especially after moving out here to the Palm Springs area. I was principal trumpet for a community symphony and did some lead work in a couple of dance bands. Gigs have kind of dried up, so I haven't played in awhile. Still got my chops, though. I just need to build the endurance back up, maybe with some long tones and lip slurs. My dearly departed dog hated the thing, but she doesn't have much say anymore about when I practice.  :) - Lucky 6.9 16:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Job

Congrats on the new job! ^_^ May you have a safe and happy move. Acetic'Acid 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:♥☻☺♠♣♦○◘•

That one is easily a speedy. I deleted it. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but I kind of like the way it looks...especially on my talk page. Thanks. Molotov (talk)
20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why Delete Vote Nikjoo?

Sorry, but this was a big thing through out the south east of england and i think just because it doesn't concern u self important yanks u decide it's not important? why delete what others work hard to provide for the public...? seems like a form of facism to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.148.229 (talk • contribs) 19:39, October 19, 2005

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what exactly you're talking about. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
you deleted a page called "vote nikjoo" on the 15th of October, now personnally i believe that the beauty of Wiki is that it allows, by the encouragment of people to make posts, pretty much everything to be discussed and referenced. so for the 'thought police' i.e. you, to go around deleting what you don't like, see a relevance in or understand, i feel, is out of order. there are plenty of posts on here i see no point in, or maybe even disagree with, however, unless it's breaking the law or encouraging discrimination or the like, i see no reason for things to be removed. maybe i'm not arrogant enough to see myself as powerful enough to delete others work.
Well, it seems I have your attention, so welcome and hello. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, may I suggest you visit our welcome page, and consider registering for a user account? In reference to your question about the article, it was nominated for speedy deletion per our Deletion Policy and Criteria for Speedy Deletion by another user. As an administrator, I have the power to delete pages, and I deleted the page, per policy. The page was deleted because it seems to concern a playground game of a single secondary school in England. That is not generally considered encyclopedic. I am sorry you disagree. However, I would offer that we have plenty of other articles that we would welcome your contribution on. Again, please visit the welcome page and better familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flamethrower

Thanks for the "flamethrower"; I hid it in my gallery so drini wouldn't try to steal it in revenge. ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 05:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

worry do not... vandals would laugh at me if they saw me using that one ;) -- (drini's page|☎) 05:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I resent that...I can have an auto de fe with my flamethrower just fine! Granted, I'll only get to use it on one vandal, so I'll save it in case I see WOW. :-p -- Essjay · Talk 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

yeah, I broke the BNTE (be nice to Essjay) rule, I apologize -- (drini's page|☎) 05:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Where the hell is that rule? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA edit charts

User:RobyWayne who recently became an admin himself is working on a tool to generate the charts that may become accessible to all users. In the interim, I continue to do my charts for noms with less than 2,000 edits as you noted. I expect that I will stop doing my charts once his charts become readily available. For an example of his charts, please see User:RobyWayne/Sandbox. As for it unbalancing the process (paraphrasing you, forgive me if I misconstrue), I don't think that is the case. In no respect have I ever encouraged anybody to use it as the only tool. In my own evaluations of nominees, I take into account the things you do and have suggested others do so as well. I feel that prior to my introduction of the charts, the process had become badly unbalanced against users with less than 2,000 edits. Nominees with >2,000 edits pass 83% of the time according to my studies. In my opinion, they don't need the help. The charts have been a concerted effort to rebalance the process back onto matters of significance, and not focus on editcountitis which has become rampant in the process. I think it is working. In my study, I showed that RfAs with less than 2,000 edits were passing at a rate of 48%. Over the last 30 days, the pass rate for nominations (not including withdraws) has been 75%! Meanwhile, RfAs with >2,000 edits in the same time period have passed 86% of the time, a slight increase over the prior 83%. Admittedly, this is as yet a small dataset, but the early results are encouraging. I of course can not attribute the shift only to the charts; doing so would be difficult at best. But, the charts are one of the few things that have recently changed in the process. With this data in mind, I don't think the lack of charts for admin nominees over 2,000 edits is detrimental to the process. --Durin 17:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

An example of this is this query of RobyWayne's into my edits. Titoxd(?!?) 18:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Evilphoenix/Archive 03/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 23:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hey, you said at my RfA "Oppose. I do seem to find myself in frequent disagreement with some of your philosophies, and I'm sorry to say that leads me to oppose. Best wishes, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)"

I'm just wondering what do you believe my philosophies are? Explain your oppose better to me, because I just want to completely understand it. It's fine that you oppose but I just want to understand all the votes I get. Private Butcher 18:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stage lighting

Since you're a lighting designer, you might want to take a look at the stage lighting article that a few of us are working on. Since it's such a broad topic, the article is a little bit disorganized, and any information or suggestions you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Kevin M Marshall 16:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottfisher

I have unblocked Scottfisher, and instructed him to begin work on listing which images he has uploaded are taken by him and which are not. I have also warned him not to upload any images or link to any off-site images or I will re-block him. It is my hope he will take this unblocking as motivation to start working on addressing the copyright issues which have been raised, but if not, I suggest that he be re-blocked. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a bad idea to me, at least as long as the old copyvios aren't handled first, but I'll leave the matter to you then. --fvw* 20:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pikachu image

I took it off the RFA page, because it's fair use only, and I don't think it fits when chiding Boothy443 :) Ral315 WS 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your response to Boothy443's RfA votes

'Ello, mate. I've noticed that you are adding a note with a wee Pikachu image saying, "I oppose you, Pikachu!" to many of the votes that Boothy443 makes on WP:RFA. Do you think that that's necessary? To me, it seems very uncivil, and out-of-line. I personally believe that Boothy is entirely entitled to vote however he feels like, with or without an explanation; some disagree with that. Regardless, you seem to think that mocking him will solve the problem that some people (including, apparently, yourself) have with him. This seems to me like a bad idea, and instead of being funny feels to me like beating up a kid who isn't very popular and expecting people to laugh (please note that I don't at all think that this was your intention. I'm sure that you wanted to just humourously rebuke Boothy for his constant "oppose" votes). Please stop doing this, unless you have some reason to believe that this will help in and that this doesn't violate Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If that's the case, I'd appreciate your sharing that information. Yours, --Blackcap | talk 01:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I want to stress that I have nothing but respect for you as a contributor and would never (and don't) think that you would make a post with anything but the best of intentions. I merely believe that this is a very poor course of action and should not continue. --Blackcap | talk

I'm not sure how Blackcap came to that conclusion - but your oppose vote on Johntex's RFA seems somewhat pointless...he has like 69 support votes...without putting a reason, voting oppose is not gonna stop his rfa... freestylefrappe 02:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm supporting Johntex. The Pikachu image is in response to Boothy, not a vote. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Snarky...?? freestylefrappe 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes your "Pikachu votes" or responses seem like your taunting Boothy. And i would like to say that he does have admin standards and the people he opposed dont fit his criteria. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
How is that relevant to mocking Boothy? Whether he has standards or not doesn't matter when the point is that it's not acceptable to make fun of another user, especially one who recently had an RfC for the thing he's being mocked for. It's unkind and in poor taste, IMHO. --Blackcap | talk 05:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The point of voting "oppose" is not necessarily to stop an RfA. Your logic sounds similar to, "Don't bother voting on something that's important of you're going to lose." We vote and discuss things to build a consensus view, and to express what we believe is the best course of action. It's irrelevant whether or not someone is massively supported/opposed. --Blackcap | talk 05:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
But Boothy doesn't discuss, I don't think he has ever left a reason with his vote. the wub "?!" 09:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Right. He's not discussing, he's expressing his views with a vote rather than a statement. That doesn't really make a difference. A point that many people have made before is that an unmarked "support" vote never goes challenged, whereas for some reason an "oppose" vote often does. The regularity of his "oppose" votes don't change anything either. Anyway, this isn't really what I was talking about; I'd just like Evilphoenix to stop mocking Boothy (or at the very least explain why he does). --Blackcap | talk 03:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, yea, I would suggest that you probably remove those... Sasquatcht|c 07:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Response

Several of you have posted on my Talk page providing feedback about my Pikachu posts to RfA. I've debated for a couple days whether or not to responsd, and if so, how, and I haven't yet figured out a good answer, so I'm going with this one.

I oppose Boothy443's voting habits. I feel that repeatedly voting against RfA candidates with no explanation whatsoever is discouraging to the candidates and detrimental to the process. Some users have mentioned that Boothy apparently does have criteria. I'm sitting here right now looking up stuff to double check myself, and I see that he has been responding to some of the comments on his Talk page lately, because my sense was that I hadn't seen much response from him to questions about his standards, but maybe he's changed his stance on that. However I still haven't seen anything that gives a clear indication of exactly what his standards are. And what's with this comment? What I have not seen on Boothy's part is any participation whatsoever in Wikipedia_talk:Requests for Adminship. That bothers me too. Blackcap comments above that unmarked support votes are rarely challenged, while unmarked oppose votes are. I think this is justified. Personally, I like to comment on every vote I make, but if I am going to oppose someone, I feel some explanation is justified. I feel they ought to know for what reason I am opposing them, and I think that gives them at least the opportunity to know if I am opposing them for A. something they have done in their behavior that I object to, and therefore they can choose to change or not or B. something they can't change as easily, such as the amount of time they've been on the wiki. If that makes sense. I feel that it's more courteous to at least give a reason for opposing someone. My feeling is that Wikipedia needs as many good administrators as possible, and that anyone that wants to be an admin or is nominated by another user to be an admin should be an admin, unless there is something in their behavior and history that suggests they should not be an admin. In other words, we should support candidates unless there is reason to do otherwise, not the reverse, and thus, in my mind, opposes should have some explanation. However, that is not policy, and users are certainly allowed to vote without giving explanation, but I still dislike that. So, in short, Boothy bothers me.

Now, to the Pikachu thing. It's a silly dancing Pikachu. It's a reference to that dumb "I choose you, Pikachu" line you might have heard (if you haven't heard it, I think you really lose the intent of how it should be read). I think what Boothy is doing is silly, so I put up a silly dancing Pikachu in response. Blackcap, I don't think that will solve the problem. I have little hope of it actually. It was just what I wanted to do. I also don't really "expect others to laugh too". If they think it's funny, great, if it bothers them, well I accept that too. Blackcap, you got it right when you suggested I wanted to "humourously rebuke Boothy for his constant "oppose" votes". I don't know if I came up with what I wanted to say first and found the picture, or if it was the reverse, but I wanted to say something. That was how I chose to say it. Was that the right choice? That's debatable. Many of you that have posted don't think it was. I think you might be right. Ral315 removed the image from one of the RfA's, declaring that it wasn't a fair use of the image, and I ended up just removing the entire comment, cause it really doesn't work at all without the little dancing goofy Pikachu. However, I left the comments up on the other RfA's. I debated taking them down, and maybe I will yet change my mind. But back to what I was saying about how that was how I chose to say something to Boothy, that is how I chose to say it, and I'm not going to walk away from the consequences of making that choice. For good or for bad, that's what I did. It happens in my Wikipedia career that some things I do I am praised for and some I am criticized for. If this is of the latter, I'm willing to accept that. I'm not gonna claim that that was the best possible choice of action. I appreciate the comments y'all have made, and I will certainly take them under consideration should I desire to do something similar in the future. If y'all have further questions (or care to chide me some more Image:Smiley icon.png), feel free Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Grand. Thanks for the response. I'll just leave with a link: Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. Take care, --Blackcap | talk 04:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying Boothy is a vandal? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Not in the least. (Sorry, I really could've been clearer about that). I was just saying that, on general principle, those kinds of comments are ineffective in terms of dealing with the situation. Sorry, that was really ambiguous, I should've clarified, but I wasn't thinking. --Blackcap | talk 05:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I thought it was pretty funny. If Boothy isn't prepared to take a bit of light hearted flak for his votes then perhaps he should start explaining them. the wub "?!" 13:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


Due to my recent RfA I have not been voting on others so as not to appear that I was canvassing for support. I noticed that other than Boothy443, yours was the only name in the oppose section. How you vote does not bother me, but after reading this section and the line that you have now been adding below Boothy443's votes in ongoing RfA's, I am a little confused. Were you voting oppose to me or oppose to Boothy443's oppose vote? If you were voting oppose to me was there anything in particular that concerned you about what I had done (or not done). Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather 22:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The comment was in opposition to Boothy's oppose. I didn't make the full text as I had done so on other RfA's, I just posted the picture. You're welcome to draw your own conclusions as the wisdom of that action :-) . Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Mer

Hi Phoenix! Mer was deleted, and I agree that it was a deletable thing. However, the validity of the speedy was disputed and brought to VFU/DR. There the debate racked up only "undelete" votes. Meanwhile, Kappa made an entirely new article at Mer, about a geographical department in France. An undeletion now was now "history only" which did not need to wait for five days at the Deletion Review page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, no idea the deletion had been disputed. I still don't understand why the history needed to be undeleted? Why not have the version that Kappa made simply be a re-create, rather than undeleting the history? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, Kappa was one of the few people who thought the deletion was valid. At any rate, "history only"s can always be done (see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy) unless it is a copyvio. But I think Kappa's version is infinitely better than what lies in the history, so let's hope nobody tries reverting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The discussion can be found here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid VFU (now DRV for "Deletion Review") is only archived by means of the history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't complain if you deleted those things from the history, they are dreadful... Yeah, I think Kappa has the moral claim to be the creator of the Mer article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vanadalism ?

Hi Evilphoenix,

I received a message telling I'm vanadalising a page I created. I wrote my firsdt article which user Feydey is constantly modifying.

I have not finished writing this article and Feydey constantly readds pointless information such as bullet points and chapter line seperators.

Please refrain him from Pursuing such actions. I find it quite unappropriate that even in an open shared community users can be allowed to arbitrarilly chang eothers' article when they don't add any kind of information,

Regards, Captain scarlet 06:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy vs. AfD

Thanks for the notes. I won't take the articles (Tutorial system and Saga of Shimizu) to AfD - if you think they're notable enough to stay, it's OK. (I did a couple of hours of RC patrol, tagging a lot of (now deleted) nonsense and non-notable stuff. Of the 50 or so pages I tagged, some still exist, some tags have been changed by other users - like you did. That was exactly my intention.) Keep up the good work! --Janke | Talk 06:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • My philosophy is this (please tell me if I'm totally off my rocker here): When doing RC patrol, I use only speedy tags (sometimes specific, sometimes not), to get the attention of one admin (the one who happens to see the tag first). If that single admin (or even an ordinary user) thinks my tag is inappropriate, he/she will change it to something more suitable - and I won't object. Admin time consumed: 1 x 20 seconds. However, if I take something to AfD, we may have a situation where several over-worked admins will have to spend their time voting and explaining their reasoning. Admin time consumed: n x 60 seconds, n being... well, you get the idea! Thoughts? --Janke | Talk 06:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I think what would be the most helpful would be to try to tag things as accurately as possible. It does take a little time to get a sense of what is a CSD and what is an AfD, but it's generally better to err on the side of caution than not. If something is incorrectly tagged, then the admin has to take the time to fix that, and that is a bit time consuming. When on CSD patrol, it's nice to just be able to burn through them and knock them out, and the ones I can zip through are the ones that are correctly tagged, because then I can just go, yep, thats right, and *poof* it's gone, but the ones that are wrong take a little longer. The ones that are just the wrong CSD (people like to use "nonsense" for everything) Aren't too bad, you can just delete them anyway and list the right reason, unless you have to be like me sometimes and go explain to the user why they mis-tagged the CSD. However the ones that should really be an AfD take longer. I think you have the right idea trying to get an admins attention with tagging it with something, but why not go ahead and make sure it's tagged correctly? Don't be afraid to submit stuff to AfD, doing that will help you get a sense of what will and won't generally gain a consensus for deletion, and what should or shouldn't be a speedy. If you take something to AfD that should be CSD, people will generally know and comment that, and before long an admin will generally wander by and delete it and close it. It doesn't really take that long to close an AfD. Also, keep in mind that regular users as well as admins are allowed and encouraged to participate in AfD! Non-admins can even close certain debates with a clear consensus, the only thing limited to admins are closing delete debates and disputed debates. But anyway, thanks for the good work and keep it up! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please ban 67.15.136.199

Please ban 67.15.136.199 for repeated vandalism they are still doing it --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 08:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: The River Wild

OK, I appreciate you saying so. I will bare that page in mind in the future. Thank you. -- Thorpe talk 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottfisher

You told User:Scottfisher: 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.. Please see [1]. Andy Mabbett 09:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottfisher

I am done with the copyright issues at this time. Can you please tell me why the [picture of the warning sign] was deleted and tagged. There was no problem. I am the source of the picture, and it is not a copy vio. If you have any questions about the picture let me know, or I will reload it at another time. I think fv w accidently tagged it wrong and accidently deleted it. Why don't you bring it back, it's not on the list because there was no problem. Look at the picture itself, and see the source. Heck there is even a link I provided. Are we trying to build an encycloedia, or what? Maybe I'll just become a sock puppet someday. That might be easier, but I'd rather not Scott 19:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Scott, you're confusing me now. First off, you are not done with copyright issues, both Image:Mine_fire_warning_centraila.JPG and Image:Centralia7.jpg are still disputed and have not been resolved. You say you took the photo, so ok, I'll accept that claim. Second, I'm not sure what you mean when you ask why the image was deleted, if by deleted you mean removed from the article, it was removed from the article because there were questions about the copyright status of the image. Neither of the images themselves have been deleted at this point, but their status needs to be resolved. Since you claim to be the author of the image, I think we can move forward with getting those images cleared. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Evil, don't be confused..
Ok, good job on the Mine fire warning pic; just checking in between my thirteen old son's homework, three dogs and two cats, but the cats don't count, but my wife does, LOL; What's next? PS: I did not check to see if the right one is on The list, but I will now.
OK - centalia7 is on the deletion list, thats's good and the one you fixed is not on the list, which means we are good to go now.
Thanks again, we're making progress.
If you want my opinion at this point, we should now delete all the ones ready for deletion on the list, it will make the process go faster, that way we will be clearer on seeing how this affects the articles, of which I don't think will matter at this point, and it will make things better to clear up.
Let me know what else you are thinking, I'll be checking in and out, or, off and on. I think we need to ask fvw if he's ready to get rid of the ones on the list ready for deletion, that should be easy.
I would do it myself if I was authorized and you guys are authorized to do so.
Best regards, Scott 23:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)